Sales in Retail Stores Nashville Tn 2003 2004 South Nashville by npq16003

VIEWS: 165 PAGES: 76

Sales in Retail Stores Nashville Tn document sample

More Info
									                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 1



                   South Nashville
         Community Needs & Assets Assessment
                     Final Report
                                             January 25, 2005

                                        Conducted and written by:
              Vanderbilt University Students in HOD 1700-5: Systematic Inquiry (Fall, 2003)
           and HOD 2610: Community Development Organizations and Policies (Spring, 2004)

              Under the supervision of Dr. Douglas D. Perkins <d.perkins@Vanderbilt.edu>,
                        and graduate Teaching Assistant, Lynette Jacobs-Priebe,
        Program in Community Research & Action, Dept. of Human & Organizational Development
                                  Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
                            Dept. website: http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/hod
            Report online at: http://www.people.vanderbilt.edu/~douglas.d.perkins/home.html

                                 And with the support and cooperation of:

  Ms. Tonya Elkins, Director, South Nashville Family Resource Center tonya.j.elkins@vanderbilt.edu
         http://www.unitedwaynashville.org/changinglives/resourcecenters/woodbine.article.asp
                                    and the FRC Advisory Board,

                      Woodbine Community Organization, 833-9580; 222 Oriel Ave.
                                  www.woodbinecommunity.org ,

        and the Vanderbilt University Ambassador Service-Learning Enhancement Grant Program.

       We thank Cyndi Taylor, then at Vanderbilt University, for her assistance with the Census data,
          Blaine Ray, Neighborhoods Resources Center, for providing crime and health statistics,
 Hank Helton, MDHA, and Ryan Latimer, Nashville Planning Commission for providing housing information,
             Rhonda Belue, Metro Health Department, for providing health survey information,
        and residents of the Woodbine, Glencliff, and Radnor neighborhoods for their cooperation.

                                              Project Teams:

History of Flatrock Neighborhood: Jonathon Wong, Mike Davis, Tim Wile, Mary Jane Nash, Willa Lincoln

Neighborhood Population Profile: Tim Wile, Jonathan Wong, Zac Hood, Mary Jane Nash, Mike Davis,
Brianna Jordan, Sarah Marshall, Tyler Ford Pennell, Misha Shah, William Williford

Block Nonresidential Environmental Inventory: Sydney Conklin, Sarah Taussig, Willa Lincoln, Kristen
Reiss, Joseph Urso, Edward Buchanan, Rachel Dawson

Business Survey: David Jewell, Kate Davis, Elaine Merriman, Hayley Harris, Rachel Moser
Cristina Evans, Roger Willis, Ryan Parkin

Resident Survey: Angela Stout, Stephanie Sipek, Andrew Stephens, Katie Welling, Kimberly Backes,
Kelechi Ohanaja, David Jewell, Elizabeth Johnson, Cheron Thompson
                               2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 2



                                   CONTENTS
                                                                      I. Executive Summary 3
                                                                                    Background 3
                                                                               Results Summary 3
                                                                              Recommendations 4

II. Brief History of Flatrock Area of South Nashville (Woodbine, Glencliff and Radnor) 5

  III. Neighborhood Population Profile (from Census, Crime, Education, Health Data) 6
                   A. Population, Occupied Housing Units, Home Ownership and Household Size 6
                                                                           B. Nation of Origin 7
                                                                          C. Race & Ethnicity 8
                                                                        D. Income & Poverty 9
                                                                    E. Schools & Education 11
                                                                          F. Crime Statistics 14
                                                                    G. Housing Affordability 17
                                                                         H. Health Statistics 18

                                                                       IV. Resident Survey 19
                                      A. Questions 1-27: Neighborhood Concerns and Problems         19
                   B. Preferences for Housing Types, Retail, Industrial Land Use, & Restaurants     21
                                                                              C. Crime and Fear     21
                        D. Questions 28-48: Satisfaction with City Services, Community & Home       22
                             E. Questions 49-51: Transportation and Public Recreation Facilities    23
                        F. Questions 82-84: Green Space, Jobs for Teens, Elderly Quality of Life    23
                                        G. General Community-focused Feelings and Behaviors         24
                                           H. Questions 88-109: Survey Sample Demographics          26

                                                                        V. Business Survey 28
                                                                                  A. Introduction   28
                                                                B. Methods for Business Survey      28
                                                               C. Types and Age of Businesses       29
                                                               D. Satisfaction with City Services   30
                                 E. Satisfaction with the Neighborhood as a Place for Business      31
                                                                              F. Block Problems     33
                                                               G. Business Association Interest     36
                               H. City Commitment & Effectiveness for Neighborhood Business         37
                                                                                 I. Safety Issues   40
                                                                 J. Business Indicators and Size    40
                                                             K. Other Comments and Concerns         41

                                    VI. Block Nonresidential Environmental Inventory 42

                                                                    VII. Recommendations 54

                                  VIII. APPENDIX 1: Information for Interviewers                    57
                                        IX. APPENDIX 2: Informed Consent Form                       59
                                               X. APPENDIX 3: Resident Survey                       60
                                              XI. APPENDIX 4: Business Survey                       68
                   XII. APPENDIX 5: Block Nonresidential Environmental Inventory                    72
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 3


                                         I. Executive Summary
Background
Target Community. In the Spring of 2003, the staff and board of the South Nashville Family Resource
Center (FRC; then part of Woodbine Community Organization-WCO), requested help with a neighborhood
needs assessment, which had not been done in that area since 1987. The area, historically called Flatrock,
includes the Glencliff, Radnor, and Woodbine neighborhoods. The boundaries of the FRC service area are I-
440 (northern), Woodlawn Cemetery/CSX railroad (western), I-24 (eastern), and Antioch Pike (southern)
(see http://www.heros-inc.org/SOUTHNASHVILLE.pdf). It is Nashville‘s most diverse and fastest changing area,
hence the need for an accurate, up-to-date assessment of community problems, needs, and assets.
Vanderbilt Support. Vanderbilt University provided a service-learning grant to Dr. Douglas Perkins, who
turned the $1,000 over to the Woodbine FRC who used the grant to compensate interviewers and
respondents for completing the 30-minute survey and for printing costs. Dr. Perkins and two graduate
assistants spent well over 300 hours on the project, which constitutes a considerable in-kind contribution by
those individuals, the Dept. of Human & Organizational Development, and VU‘s Peabody College. In
addition, 35 undergraduates enrolled in two courses donated approximately 30 hours each on the project.
Thus, the total Vanderbilt contribution reflects the importance Vanderbilt places on its partnership with WCO,
as recognized by Chancellor Gordon Gee at the March 19, 2003, partnership kickoff event.
Demonstration. This project demonstrates to this and other neighborhood and service organizations that
they can conduct their own needs assessment/asset mapping projects in the future and how to do so. It will
help not only Woodbine Organization, but other local nonprofits and Metro government, to both plan their
services more effectively, efficiently, and responsively, and also apply for funding to address the identified
needs. Identifying the strengths of the community will also help local organizations and residents to affirm,
celebrate, protect, and build on what is good about the neighborhood. It also demonstrated to Vanderbilt
undergraduates how social research is conducted and how it can be both meaningful and usefully applied to
helping people and organizations. Finally, it models to college instructors one of many possible ways to
conduct applied participatory research as service-learning course projects. There are hundreds of
neighborhood organizations in Nashville, each of which is a potential partner for similar projects.
Dissemination. The FRC Director and Board, and community leaders and residents attended a public
presentation and evaluation of the project and results at the Glencliff High School auditorium on April 22,
2004. This report will be disseminated to the WCO, Woodbine FRC, United Way of Metropolitan Nashville,
the Mayor‘s Office of Neighborhoods, three participating neighborhood associations, and several churches in
the area. It will also be posted to a Vanderbilt website.
Results Summary
Population Profile. The Flatrock area of Nashville has always been a diverse community, from the variety
of Native American tribes who first inhabited the area more than 200 years ago to subsequent waves of
immigration, including other parts of Tennessee and the U.S; and more recently, from all over the world.
According to the 2000 Census, about 12% of Flatrock area residents are African-American, 12% Hispanic,
and 6% Asian-born. The average household income for the area is $33,307, which is $6,490 below the
County average. The overall 2002 crime rate in Flatrock did not differ substantially from the County.
However, the burglary and car theft rates in the neighborhood were higher and the robbery and substance
abuse rates lower than the County rates. The average price for a single family home in Woodbine from 1998
to 2003 was $73,956, which represents considerable long-term appreciation, but still relatively affordable
housing compared with many other sections of Nashville. The proportion of residents with a college
education is also slightly below the County average. Among those aged five years and older, the percentage
of all disabilities (employment, physical, mental, sensory, homebound, self-care) in Flatrock is 24.5% above
the County average. All four schools in the area are labeled ―target schools‖ as determined by their failure to
meet state standards. In addition, many students in these four schools have a critical challenge in coping
with language diversity, not just for Spanish-speakers, but or students from dozens of different countries.
Resident Survey. 103 residents on 30 randomly selected blocks were interviewed between October, 2003,
and April, 2004. They were particularly concerned about basic health, dental, and vision care for low-income
residents, traffic, affordable housing, and development issues in the neighborhood and being ignored on
those issues. While crime was only of moderate concern to the whole sample, traffic and crime were
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 4


identified by the most individuals as the most important problems. A third of the respondents (or a family
member) had been the victim of a crime in the previous three years. 30% were afraid when out in the
neighborhood at night. Most residents were satisfied with fire and police protection, garbage collection,
community centers, and other city services. They were less satisfied with the lack of sidewalks, greenways,
and safe places for teens, which may help explain fairly low ratings for city government‘s effectiveness in
helping the neighborhood. Less than 9% of respondents use public transit. Although residents felt the
neighborhood‘s public image is only fair and most did not know a majority of their neighbors or have a
particularly strong sense of community, they are very attached to their homes and blocks and are mostly very
tolerant of neighborhood diversity. 90% felt the neighborhood associations and WCO should advocate on
local political issues. Most residents did not know their city councilperson‘s name, but that is who they would
most often go to to get something done in the neighborhood. Few had attended a meeting of, or done any
work for their neighborhood association or WCO, but over 70% said it is important for them to be involved in
efforts to improve their community.
Business Survey. A survey was conducted in October-November, 2003, at 38 businesses along
Nolensville Rd. and Thompson Lane. 57% of respondents were managers, 32% owners, and 11%
employees. Most were satisfied with police and other city services. Traffic and crime were cited as the
biggest neighborhood problems. Respondents rated the public image of the neighborhood as fair to good.
61% of businesses surveyed directly experienced crime in the past three years. Businesses generally
reported strong performance despite the weak 2001-03 economy, with 53% of businesses saying that sales
in the past year had remained the same and 32.4% stating that sales had gone up. Nearly 60% of
businesses interviewed reported that they had plans for future growth. 43% said they would join a local
business association if started. Of the 57% who would not join, time was the biggest obstacle.
The Block Nonresidential Environmental Inventory systematically recorded the observations of the
physical condition of 50 residential and 20 commercial blocks across all three neighborhoods. The streets
were mainly in good condition and substantial construction and renovation were observed.
Recommendations:
   Neighborhood organizations should celebrate the tremendous cultural diversity of area residents as the
    valuable asset that it is by recruiting more fully representative memberships and creating more programs
    that are inclusive of all groups in the Woodbine, Glencliff, and Radnor area.
   All government agencies, clinics, businesses, and neighborhood organizations should work to provide a
    wider array of language resources (including Spanish but other languages as well).
   Opportunities for strengthening communication between residents, community organizations, and city
    officials should be increased by a more concerted effort to reach out (e.g., through well publicized events
    and expanding the frequency, circulation, and if possible, language translations of newsletters) to ALL
    residents, businesses, and ethnic/nationality and age groups throughout all three neighborhoods.
   Citizen participation would improve if more block captains were recruited and, where there is interest,
    block associations formed.
   Neighborhood businesses should work more closely together with neighborhood organizations to
    address mutual concerns, including problems related to commercial or industrial uses, and to improve
    local business owners‘, managers‘, and workers‘ perceptions of the community they serve.
   Neighborhood schools should be given more support to address performance goals and challenges
    related to student and family diversity.
   Businesses and residents should consider working more closely with police to address problems such as
    residential burglary, crimes against businesses, and car theft. Current efforts at police-community
    relations should be continued and supported.
   After-school programs should be expanded and further developed to provide teens with supervised
    activities until parents return home from work.
   Local developers and the city should provide more affordable housing, including units for singles as well
    as single-family homes.
   Healthcare providers, service advocates, businesses and residents should work collaboratively to
    address the problem of access to dental, vision, and healthcare, for all residents and particularly for the
    uninsured and the disproportionately large disabled segment of the community.
   The area east of Glenrose Ave. extending north of I-440 has the lowest proportion of home owners in the
    entire area. The FRC, WCO and other private and Metro agencies should expand services into it.
                                          2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 5


                II. BRIEF HISTORY OF FLATROCK AREA OF SOUTH NASHVILLE
         Once considered one of Nashville‘s largest suburbs, the Flatrock area (consisting of the Woodbine,
Glencliff, and Radnor neighborhoods and referred to in this report interchangeably as ―Woodbine‖ or
―Flatrock‖) has historically functioned as its own community. The Woodbine area began a place where the
five Native American tribes (Seminoles, Creeks, Chocktaws, Chickasaws, and Cherokees) that inhabited the
surrounding land could congregate for various reasons. This area was a site for business transactions and
the signing of treaties. In addition the land was shared by the surrounding tribes for both agricultural and
hunting purposes. Because of its highly beneficial qualities, all five tribes agreed to make the area a
resource for all on the grounds that the area was to be purely nonresidential.
         As time passed, the white settlers began to take over the area surrounding Nashville and slowly
began to make the area of Woodbine their home. After the Revolutionary War, the Woodbine area was
made up of parcels of land, which became plantations, granted as compensation to those who had served in
the war. In 1840, David Hughes purchased 150 acres of farmland. Hughes‘ daughter has historically been
credited as the person responsible for naming the community the name of ―Woodbine‖ after the
honeysuckles that grew on their property. In addition to the high volume of plantations, the growth of the
Baptist church throughout greater Tennessee originated in the Woodbine area and has been purportedly
linked to James Whitsitt. Whitsitt, a relative of the earlier white settlers in the area, was a local pastor at the
Mill Creek Baptist Church and founder of Flat Rock Academy in 1880. With the abolition of slavery in 1865
plantation owners were forced to sell their land, ushering in a new era for the Woodbine region.
         In the early 1900s the population of the Woodbine community began to grow and change. The
Nashville Railroad brought a change to the community when it chose to establish a freight yard site in the
area that today is known as the Radnor community. Many of the employees of the railroad company who
were continually passing through began to settle into the area and start families. In 1906 A.N. Echman, a
reputable Cumberland Presbyterian minister and educator founded Radnor Female College. The only
building on the college‘s campus, surrounded by park-like landscaping, had occupancy for 250 women.. The
purpose of the school was to train women in ―proper dress, decorum, self-discipline, courtesy, modulated
speech and ladylike facial expressions‖ (Hancock). In addition the school offered studies in literature, musical
instruments, singing and art.
        In the 1920s the Woodbine Community Center planted its roots as the Woodbine Sewing Club
founded by Fannie Williams, a highly involved member of the community who had a vision to unite races.
Dissatisfied with the treatment of black youths within the community she hoped for racial unity among the
Woodbine residents through the creation of the Woodbine Sewing Club.
         By the 1930‘s the Woodbine area was a developing business district and diverse residential
community. In the 1930s the town had its own grocery store, two hardware stores, one bank, a Dairy Queen
and a blossom shop. In the 1940‘s the residents of the community felt that it was necessary to document the
progress the community has made; the result was the creation of the ―Woodbine is Our Home‖ pamphlet.
This pamphlet mainly reported on the educational and religious (Christian) aspects that were found
throughout the community. In the mid-1950s the railroad, which was the main source of income for many of
the community members, shifted to the more efficient diesel engines over the older stream engines resulting
in the loss of 2/3 of the jobs that railroads companies had once produced. The strain caused by the
significant increase in unemployment greatly effected the moral and unity of the community.
         More recently, articles of the Tennessean and other media sources, have chosen to focus on certain
aspects of the Woodbine area. Several articles have highlighted the increased diversity in the community,
diversity, described as segregated due to the lack of integration among the various races who reside in
Woodbine. While some may question the integration of the residents of Woodbine, the diversity within the
community acts as role model for the rest of Davidson County. The increased diversity in Woodbine creates
an environment in which community members to better understand different cultures and allows community
members access to a variety of different resources to meet the needs of the community members.
       In 2002, Councilwoman Amanda McClendon helped launch an ―enhancement project‖ that focused
on improving the perception of the Woodbine Community business area, predominantly located on
Nolensville road. To fund the project the state granted the Woodbine community $1.3 million to make
Nolensville Pike more assessable to pedestrians by building more sidewalks, street lights, etc.
                                         2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 6


         The Woodbine Community Organization also seeks to enhance the quality of life within the area,
providing a variety of services for the residents in the area. Examples of the programs that the community
organization provides include ESL classes, literacy, assistance filing taxes, home ownership, and resources
for senior citizens. The various programs offered by the Woodbine Community Organization, are vital
resources for the community residents as the number of immigrants and minorities continue to increase as
new members of the community.

         III. NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION PROFILE FOR SOUTH NASHVILLE
                BASED ON CENSUS, CRIME, EDUCATION & HEALTH DATA
              1
Data Sources: The 2000 U.S. Census website (http://www.census.gov/) was searched for Davidson County
and the Woodbine, Glencliff, and Radnor neighborhoods. Other information available from the Woodbine
Neighborhood Profile at the Planning Dept. website at www.nashville.gov . The map of the Woodbine/South
Nashville FRC Service Area includes all of Census tracts 174.02 (Glencliff), and 175 (Radnor); most of 173
(Woodbine), excluding a triangular section North of I-440; and parts of 159, 172, 174.01. In some of the
following tables, just the first three of the above tracts were used and in others, students used one or more of
the overlapping tracts.

A. Population, Occupied Housing Units, Home Ownership, and Household Size

         The following table presents complete 2000 Census data on total population, number of occupied
housing units and homeowners, percent of units that are owner-occupied, and the mean number of
occupants per household unit for Glencliff, Radnor, Central Woodbine (tract 173), the combined full Census
Tracts (159, 172, 174.01) which Woodbine shares with its adjacent neighborhoods to the east and west
(―Outer Woodbine‖), the Core Area of the Family Resource Center (173, 174.02, 175), the entire area of all 6
tracts (―South Nashville‖, which includes some block groups outside the FRC service area), and all of
Davidson County.

                                             Central      Outer          FRC Core      South
Area:                  Glencliff   Radnor    Woodbine     Woodbine       Area (173,    Nashville     Davidson
(Census tracts):       (174.02)    (175)     (173)        (159, 172,     174.02,       (all 6        County
                                                          174.01)        175)          tracts)
Population                5,309     3,093        3,303           6,407        11,705        18,112    569,891
Occupied units            2,487     1,384        1,240           3,116         5,111         8,227    237,405
# Homeowners              1,020       706          796           1,149         2,522         3,671    131,340
% Owner-occupied         41.0%     51.0%        64.2%           36.9%         49.3%         44.6%      55.3%
Avg. household size        2.13      2.23         2.66            2.06          2.29          2.20       2.30

         As of the year 2000, the FRC served an area with a population of approximately 14,000-15,000
(because of the overlapping tracts, this estimate is not precise). Regarding home ownership, the FRC core
area (49.3%), and overlapping tracts even moreso (36.9%), have a lower proportion of owners than the rest
of the city (55.3%). The average household size across the FRC area is only slightly less than the County
average. For both ownership and household size, however, there is significant geographic variation within
South Nashville. The greatest contrast is between Central Woodbine with 64.2% home ownership and 2.66
persons per household (both higher than the County average) versus Census tract 159 to the east of
Glenrose Avenue and extending north of I-440, which has only 20.4% home owners and 1.8 persons per
household. Smaller households generally means less income and social support available to each
household. Tract 159 is clearly one to which the FRC, Woodbine Community Organization, and other local
service organizations and public agencies should attend to closely. If the rest of Tract 159 (north of I-440) is
not served by another FRC, South Nashville FRC should consider expanding its catchment area to include it.


1
  * Blaine Ray, Neighborhood Resource Center, provided crime data and Cyndi Taylor, formerly at the
Peabody Library Census Center of Vanderbilt University, assisted the Census data collection. For
information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions see
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expsf3.htm
                                      2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 7



B. Nation of Origin Demographics

Table 1: Foreign-Born As Percent Of Total
                     Davidson County      South Nashville FRC          FRC-Davidson
 Total Population      532,311    100%         10,997      100%
 Foreign Born           39,596     7.4%          1559     14.2%                   6.8%

Table 2. Place Of Birth For The Foreign-Born Population
                      Davidson County      South Nashville FRC         FRC-Davidson
 Total:                  39,596     100%          1559      100%
 Europe:                  5,038    12.7%           126       8.1%                -4.6%
 Asia:                   12,800    32.3%           658     42.2%                  9.9%
 Africa:                  4,199    10.6%             23      1.5%                -9.1%
 Oceania:                   209      0.5%            11      0.7%                 -.2%
 Latin America:          16,256    41.1%           741     47.5%                  6.4%

Table 3. Place Of Birth By Year Of Entry By Citizenship Status For The Foreign-Born Population
 Year of entry 1990
 to March 2000:          Davidson County         South Nashville FRC FRC-Davidson
 Asia                         7,996     62.5%           395      60%            -2.4%
 Mexico                       8,431     80.1%           395      97%            16.9%

Table 4. Year Of Entry For The Foreign-Born Population
                       Davidson Co., TN     South Nashville FRC         FRC-Davidson
 Total:                   39,596      100%         1559      100%
 1995 to March 2000       17,721     44.8%          725       47%                   1.7%
 1990 to 1994              8,852     22.4%          404       26%                   3.6%

Table 5. Household Language By Linguistic Isolation
                                  Davidson Co., TN           S. Nashville FRC    FRC-Davidson
 Total:                             237,432     100.0%        5,105    100.0%
 English                            212,880      89.7%        4,279     83.8%               -5.8%
 Spanish:                            11,778       5.0%          447       8.8%               3.8%
                         2
 Linguistically isolated              2,776       1.2%          181       3.5%               2.4%
 Not linguistically isolated          9,002       3.8%          266       5.2%               1.4%
 Other Indo-European languages:       6,795       2.9%          147       2.9%               0.0%
 Linguistically isolated              1,068       0.4%           25       0.5%               0.0%
 Not linguistically isolated          5,727       2.4%          122       2.4%               0.0%
 Asian/Pacific Island languages:      3,563       1.5%          216       4.2%               2.7%
 Linguistically isolated              1,251       0.5%          102       2.0%               1.5%
 Not linguistically isolated          2,312       1.0%          114       2.2%               1.3%
 Other languages:                     2,416       1.0%           16       0.3%              -0.7%
 Linguistically isolated                706       0.3%            0       0.0%              -0.3%
 Not linguistically isolated          1,710       0.7%           16       0.3%              -0.4%


2
 A linguistically isolated household is one in which no member 14 years old and over (1) speaks only
English or (2) speaks a non-English language and speaks English very well. In other words all members 14
years old and over have at least some difficulty with English.
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 8


         Conclusions: Nation of Origin Demographics. Table 1 reports 1,559 residents of Woodbine
immigrated to the US from a foreign country. The immigrant population makes up over 14% of Woodbine's
total population, almost double the percentage of immigrants in Davidson County's total population. This
demonstrates the high proportion of Nashville‘s Immigrant population that resides in the Woodbine area.
Woodbine residents can be proud of their diverse demographics. Table 2 lists the regions where immigrants
were born. 90% of Woodbine immigrants were born in Asia (42%) or Latin America (48%). More
specifically, 18% of immigrants were born in Laos, 7% in Vietnam, 26% in Mexico, 8% in El Salvador, and
6.5% in Venezuela. Table 3 shows the number and percentage of Asian and Latin American born
immigrants who entered the United States from 1990 to March 2000. 60% of Asian born immigrants and
97% of Mexican born immigrants entered the US from 1990 to March 2000. Table 4 reports that 47% of all
Woodbine immigrants came to the US in 1995 to March 2000. An additional 26% of the foreign-born
population immigrated into the Woodbine area between 1990 & 1994, showing that a total of 73% of all
foreign-born Woodbine residents came to the United States from 1990 to March, 2000.

        Table 5 looks at the number of linguistically isolated households (where all members 14 years and
older have difficulty speaking English) according to the language spoken in the home. Although there are
more Spanish speaking linguistically isolated households than Asian speaking linguistically isolated
households, 47% of Asian speaking households are linguistically isolated compared to 40% of Spanish
speaking households despite the fact that a greater proportion of Mexican born residents immigrated to the
US more recently than Asian born residents. Possible reasons for this difference may be that Spanish is
more linguistically similar to English, Spanish speakers have been exposed to more English before they
immigrated, and/or they also have access to more ESL (English as a Second Language) programs that are
designed for Spanish speakers. This data seems to support the establishment or continuation of ESL
programs especially for Spanish and Asian speaking immigrants, many of whom have come to the US
recently and would benefit from learning to communicate in English more effectively.


C. Race/Ethnicity

                                     Table 6. Race Statistics*
                          Davidson County        S. N‘ville FRC Area     FRC-County Difference
                Total:    569,891                   13,153
White                     371,150   65.13%           9,036    68.70%                       3.6%
African American          146,939   25.78%           1,527    11.61%                     -14.2%
Asian                      13,186    2.31%             708       5.38%                     3.1%
Hispanic                   26,091    4.58%           1,532    11.65%                       7.1%
Other                      12,525    2.20%             350       2.66%                    0.46%
* from U.S. Census 2000


         Conclusions: Race/Ethncity. The calculation of percentages revealed significant differences in both
the Hispanic and African American populations. African Americans account for 25.78% of the Davidson County
population but only 11.61% of the Woodbine population. Hispanics accounts for only 4.58% in Davidson County
but 11.65% in the Woodbine Area. In addition, the 1,532 Hispanics in the Woodbine Area come from varied
backgrounds and cultures. (For more information, see ethnic background/country of origin statistics.) As a
caveat, illegal immigrants were not counted in the 2000 Census. While both Davidson County and Woodbine
Hispanic populations would increase, the greater population of Hispanics in Woodbine illustrates a possibility for
more illegal immigrants in that area. The Woodbine Area‘s racial diversity contributes to form a unique area of
mixed cultures and backgrounds.
                                2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 9


D. Income & Poverty

TABLE 7. SEX BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR THE POPULATION 16 YEARS AND OVER
                                                                      FRC-Davidson
                             Davidson County       Woodbine FRC Area   % Difference
                                                     # of
                          # of People        %      People      %
Total:                           456,655      100%   10,809      100%
 Male:                           217,427   47.61%     5,361    49.60%     1.98%
   In labor force:               161,158   74.12%     4,036    75.28%     1.16%
       In Armed Forces:              335     0.21%         0    0.00%    -0.21%
       Civilian:                 160,823   99.79%     4,036 100.00%       0.21%
          Employed:              152,371   94.74%     3,881    96.16%     1.42%
          Unemployed:              8,452     5.26%      155     3.84%    -1.42%
   Not in labor force:            56,269   25.88%     1,325    24.72%    -1.16%
 Female:                         239,228   52.39%     5,448    50.40%    -1.98%
   In labor force:               146,495   61.24%     3,252    59.69%    -1.54%
       In Armed Forces:               68     0.05%         0    0.00%    -0.05%
       Civilian:                 146,427   99.95%     3,252 100.00%       0.05%
          Employed:              138,912   94.87%     3,087    94.93%     0.06%
          Unemployed:              7,515     5.13%      165     5.07%    -0.06%
   Not in labor force:            92,733   38.76%     2,196    40.31%     1.54%
Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3

                                                                           FRC-Davidson
TABLE 8.                     Davidson County        Woodbine FRC Area       % Difference
HOUSEHOLD INCOME         Number of                 Number of
IN 1999                 Households         %       Households     %
Total:                    237,432        100%        5,780      100%
  Less than $10,000:      23,838        10.04%        604      10.45%           0.41%
  $10,000 to $14,999:     13,699        5.77%         403       6.97%           1.20%
  $15,000 to $19,999:     14,859        6.26%         531       9.19%           2.93%
  $20,000 to $24,999:     17,063        7.19%         437       7.56%           0.37%
  $25,000 to $29,999:     17,264        7.27%         532       9.20%           1.93%
  $30,000 to $34,999:     17,738        7.47%         571       9.88%           2.41%
  $35,000 to $39,999:     14,786        6.23%         501       8.67%           2.44%
  $40,000 to $44,999:     14,312        6.03%         429       7.42%           1.39%
  $45,000 to $49,999:     12,573        5.30%         403       6.97%           1.68%
  $50,000 to $59,999:     21,852        9.20%         552       9.55%           0.35%
  $60,000 to $74,999:     23,061        9.71%         417       7.21%          -2.50%
  $75,000 to $99,999:     21,289        8.97%         281       4.86%          -4.10%
 $100,000 to $124,999:    10,270        4.33%          70       1.21%          -3.11%
 $125,000 to $149,999:     4,796        2.02%           6       0.10%          -1.92%
 $150,000 to $199,999:     4,164        1.75%           3       0.05%          -1.70%
   $200,000 or more:       5,868        2.47%          40       0.69%          -1.78%
Data Set:Census 2000 Summary File 3

TABLE 9. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999 DOLLARS
                                             Woodbine                      FRC-Davidson
                     Davidson County         FRC Area                        Difference
Median Household
income in 1999            39,797               33,307                          -6,490
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 10




                                     Davidson                   Woodbine                 FRC-Davidson
    TABLE 10. PUBLIC                   County                   FRC Area                   Difference
    ASSISTANCE INCOME IN          Number of                    Number of
    1999 FOR HOUSEHOLDS            People             %         People          %
    Total:                         237,432          100%         5,780        100%
    With public assistance income    8,502          3.58%         184         3.18%              -0.40%
    No public assistance income    228,930         96.42%        5,596       96.82%               0.40%
    Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3

    TABLE 11. POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 BY AGE
                                     Davidson                 Woodbine                   FRC-Davidson
                                       County                 FRC Area                    % Difference
                              # of People        %            # of People       %
    Total:                      546,390        100%             13,253        100%
     Income in 1999 below
    poverty level:               70,960       12.99%              2,001      15.10%           2.11%
           Under 5 years          8,020       11.30%               190        9.50%          -1.81%
           5 years                1,651        2.33%                45        2.25%          -0.08%
           6 to 11 years          8,301       11.70%               114        5.70%          -6.00%
           12 to 17 years         6,192        8.73%               160        8.00%          -0.73%
           18 to 64 years        40,415       56.95%              1,306      65.27%           8.31%
           65 to 74 years         2,959        4.17%                72        3.60%          -0.57%
           75 years and over      3,422        4.82%               114        5.70%           0.87%
     Income in 1999 at or
    above poverty level:        475,430       87.01%             11,252      84.90%          -2.11%
           Under 5 years         29,095        6.12%              641         5.70%          -0.42%
           5 years                5,289        1.11%               93         0.83%          -0.29%
           6 to 11 years         34,060        7.16%              754         6.70%          -0.46%
           12 to 17 years        31,602        6.65%              742         6.59%          -0.05%
           18 to 64 years       320,917       67.50%             7,516       66.80%          -0.70%
           65 to 74 years        30,380        6.39%              838         7.45%           1.06%
           75 years and over     24,087        5.07%              668         5.94%           0.87%
    Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3

         Conclusions: Income & Poverty. Table 7 presents sex by employment status for persons over 16
years of age. Of the 456,655 in Davidson County 52.39% people are women. Woodbine evidences a
smaller proportion of women, at 50.40%. Of the 217,427 males in Davidson County, 74.12% are in the labor
     3
force , which is 1.98% smaller than Woodbine‘s 75.28%. Of those Davidson county males in the labor force,
only 335 are in the Armed forces—all the rest are civilians. No Woodbine resident is in the Armed Forces.
Woodbine‘s male employment rate is 1.42% higher than Davidson County‘s, although they are both high at
96.16% and 94.74%, respectively. The only major difference in the ―female‖ section of this chart is that
59.69% of Woodbine females were in the labor force and 61.24% of Davidson County females were in the
labor force, a 1.54% difference. Like the males in the labor force, a vast majority of all females in the labor
force were classified as civilians (very few in the Armed Forces). Also, almost 95% of female civilians in both
Woodbine and Davidson County are employed.

3
  ―Unemployed civilians [are] civilians 16 years old and over … [who] were neither ‗at work‘ nor ‗with a job but
not at work‘ during the reference week, were looking for work during the last 4 weeks, and were available to
start a job. Also included as unemployed were civilians 16 years old and over who: did not work at all during
the reference week, were on temporary layoff from a job, had been informed that they would be recalled to
work within the next 6 months or had been given a date to return to work, and were available to return to
work during the reference week, except for temporary illness.‖
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 11


         Tables 8 and 9 present 1999 data for household income and are perhaps the most noteworthy
contribution to this portion of the report. The data show that on average, Woodbine households are making
less money than Davidson County households. Table 8 shows the different income levels of all the
households in Davidson County and compares them to those of Woodbine. Going down the list starting at
the ―Less than $10,000‖ category, it appears that the numbers are relatively similar (Woodbine‘s numbers
are higher, but not by much). When one makes it down to the $50,000 mark, though, the numbers start to
make a turn. The Woodbine households‘ percentages are still higher than Davidson County‘s percentages
at $50,000-$59,000, but barely so (+0.35%). Scrolling down to the next bracket, one can see that 9.71% of
all Davidson County‘s households are making $60,000-$74,999 a year, whereas only 7.21% of Woodbine‘s
households making this amount of money per year. Woodbine‘s number of households continue to be
smaller than Davidson County‘s, all the way up to the ―$200,000 or more‖ category.
          Table 9 presents data on median household income where, ―the median divides the income
distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the median income and one-half above
the median. For households and families, the median income is based on the distribution of the total number
of households and families including those with no income. The median income for individuals is based on
individuals 15 years old and over with income….‖ Taking this statement into consideration, Davidson
County‘s median household income in 1999 was $39,797. Woodbine‘s was $33,307, making for a difference
of $6,490 in favor of Davidson County.
        Table 10 presents 1999 data on public assistance income defined as including ‗general assistance
and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Separate payments received for hospital or other
medical care (vendor payments) are excluded. This does not include Supplemental Security Income (SSI).‖
Taking that statement into consideration, a slightly smaller percentage of Woodbine households (-0.40%)
receive public assistance income than those in all Davidson County combined.
        Table 11 offers an overview of poverty status in 1999. ―The poverty status of families and unrelated
individuals in 1999 was determined using 48 thresholds (income cutoffs) arranged in a two-dimensional
matrix. The matrix consists of family size (from 1 person to 9 more people) cross-classified by presence and
number of family members under 18 years old (from no children present to 8 or more children present).
Unrelated individuals and 2-person families were further differentiated by age of the reference person (RP)
(under 65 years old and 65 years old and over).
         ―To determine a family‘s poverty status, one compares the person‘s total family income with the
poverty threshold appropriate for that person‘s family size and composition (see table in handout). If the total
income of that person‘s family is less than the threshold appropriate for that family, then the person is
considered poor, together with every member of his or her family. If a person is not living with anyone
related by birth, marriage, or adoption, then the person‘s own income is compared with his or her poverty
threshold.‖
        There is a 2.11% difference between the number of people Davidson County and the number of
people in Woodbine whose income in 1999 was below poverty level. 15.10% of Woodbine‘s 13,523 people
were considered ―poor.‖ 12.99% of Davidson County‘s 546,390 people were considered ―poor.‖
        In terms of age, the one difference is in the bracket for the ―6 to 11 years‖ category. 11.70% of the
―poor‖ people in Davidson County were of this age. Only 5.70% of the ―poor‖ people in Woodbine were of
this age. This accounts for a 6% difference between the two.
         Another bracket in which they differ is in the ―18 to 64 years‖ bracket. 56.95% of the ―poor‖ people in
Davidson County were in this age bracket. Conversely, 65.27% of the ―poor‖ people in Woodbine were in
this category. This accounts for an 8.31% difference between the two.


E. Schools and Education

        School data are drawn from the 2000 Census and the 2002-2003 Tennessee Report Cards from the
Tennessee‘s Dept. of Education. Four schools in the area include Whitsett Elementary, Glencliff Elementary,
Wright Middle School, and Glencliff Comp. High School. No state report card data were available for
Whitsett Elementary. All four schools are represented in the census data.
                                     2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 12


TABLE 12.: SCHOOL                    Davidson      % in                  % in         FRC-
ENROLLMENT STATUS                     Co., TN    Davidson   Woodbine   Woodbine     Davidson
Total:                                 546,363                12,794
Male:                                  263,133      48.16      6,391        49.95         1.79
  Enrolled in nursery/preschool:         4,835       0.88        140         1.09         0.21
    Public school                        2,430       0.44         82         0.64         0.20
    Private school                       2,405       0.44         58         0.45         0.01
  Enrolled in kindergarten:              3,732       0.68         59         0.46        -0.22
    Public school                        3,025       0.55         54         0.42        -0.13
    Private school                         707       0.13          5         0.04        -0.09
  Enrolled in grade 1 to grade 4:       15,378       2.81        336         2.63        -0.19
    Public school                       13,032       2.39        320         2.50         0.12
    Private school                       2,346       0.43         16         0.13        -0.30
  Enrolled in grade 5 to grade 8:       13,913       2.55        293         2.29        -0.26
    Public school                       11,279       2.06        246         1.92        -0.14
    Private school                       2,634       0.48         47         0.37        -0.11
  Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12:      13,361       2.45        347         2.71         0.27
    Public school                       10,894       1.99        331         2.59         0.59
    Private school                       2,467       0.45         16         0.13        -0.33
  Enrolled in undergrad college:        14,340       2.62        185         1.45        -1.18
    Public school                        7,560       1.38        139         1.09        -0.30
    Private school                       6,780       1.24         46         0.36        -0.88
  Grad/professional school:              4,258       0.78        100         0.78         0.00
    Public school                        1,521       0.28         53         0.41         0.14
    Private school                       2,737       0.50         47         0.37        -0.13
  Not enrolled in school               193,316      35.38      4,931        38.54         3.16
Female:                                283,230      51.84      6,403        50.05        -1.79
  Enrolled in nursery/preschool:         4,497       0.82        119         0.93         0.11
    Public school                        2,101       0.38         27         0.21        -0.17
    Private school                       2,396       0.44         92         0.72         0.28
  Enrolled in kindergarten:              3,439       0.63         74         0.58        -0.05
    Public school                        2,724       0.50         64         0.50         0.00
    Private school                         715       0.13         10         0.08        -0.05
  Enrolled in grade 1 to grade 4:       14,446       2.64        282         2.20        -0.44
    Public school                       11,989       2.19        240         1.88        -0.32
    Private school                       2,457       0.45         42         0.33        -0.12
  Enrolled in grade 5 to grade 8:       12,623       2.31        301         2.35         0.04
    Public school                       10,315       1.89        276         2.16         0.27
    Private school                       2,308       0.42         25         0.20        -0.23
  Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12:      13,655       2.50        304         2.38        -0.12
    Public school                       11,296       2.07        266         2.08         0.01
    Private school                       2,359       0.43         38         0.30        -0.13
  Enrolled in undergrad college:        18,148       3.32        256         2.00        -1.32
    Public school                       10,026       1.84        123         0.96        -0.87
    Private school                       8,122       1.49        133         1.04        -0.45
  Enrolled grad/profess. school:         4,575       0.84         54         0.42        -0.42
    Public school                        1,761       0.32         20         0.16        -0.17
    Private school                       2,814       0.52         34         0.27        -0.25
  Not enrolled in school               211,847      38.77      5,013        39.18         0.41
                                      2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 13



 TABLE 13. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER [35] -
                                  Universe: Population 25 years and over
                      Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data
                                       Davidson        % in                 % in       FRC-
                                       Co., TN       Davidson Woodbine Woodbine      Davidson
 Total:                                   377,734                    8,913
 Male:                                    178,444        47.24       4,366     48.98       1.74
   No schooling completed                   1,808         0.48           82     0.92       0.44
   Nursery to 4th grade                       879         0.23           31     0.35       0.12
   5th and 6th grade                        2,593         0.69         122      1.37       0.68
   7th and 8th grade                        5,347         1.42         243      2.73       1.31
   9th grade                                4,356         1.15         191      2.14       0.99
   10th grade                               5,489         1.45         175      1.96       0.51
   11th grade                               6,113         1.62         192      2.15       0.54
   12th grade, no diploma                   7,390         1.96         247      2.77       0.81
   High school graduate                    42,050        11.13       1,198     13.44       2.31
   Some college, less than 1 year           9,001         2.38         202      2.27      -0.12
   Some college, 1+ yrs, no degree         28,477         7.54         643      7.21      -0.32
   Associate degree                         7,660         2.03         235      2.64       0.61
   Bachelor's degree                       37,104         9.82         573      6.43      -3.39
   Master's degree                         10,643         2.82         156      1.75      -1.07
   Professional school degree               6,149         1.63           62     0.70      -0.93
   Doctorate degree                         3,385         0.90           14     0.16      -0.74
 Female:                                  199,290        52.76       4,547     51.02      -1.74
   No schooling completed                   1,559         0.41           66     0.74       0.33
   Nursery to 4th grade                       778         0.21           74     0.83       0.62
   5th and 6th grade                        2,175         0.58           69     0.77       0.20
   7th and 8th grade                        6,510         1.72         233      2.61       0.89
   9th grade                                4,894         1.30         195      2.19       0.89
   10th grade                               6,627         1.75         164      1.84       0.09
   11th grade                               6,452         1.71         247      2.77       1.06
   12th grade, no diploma                   6,831         1.81         187      2.10       0.29
   High school graduate                    51,055        13.52       1,508     16.92       3.40
   Some college, less than 1 year          13,700         3.63         321      3.60      -0.03
   Some college, 1+ ys, no degree          30,149         7.98         687      7.71      -0.27
   Associate degree                        10,696         2.83         172      1.93      -0.90
   Bachelor's degree                       38,844        10.28         442      4.96      -5.32
   Master's degree                         14,133         3.74         101      1.13      -2.61
   Professional school degree               3,249         0.86           29     0.33      -0.53
   Doctorate degree                         1,638         0.43           52     0.58       0.15

Conclusions: Schools & Education
         The census data presents very similar findings in both the Woodbine area and Davidson County in
regards to school enrollment and school attainment for both males and females. The data suggests that
more males, 3 years or older, in the Woodbine area are not enrolled in school compared to males, 3 years or
older, in Davidson County. Female enrollment is the same in both Woodbine and Davidson. The data also
suggests less females, 25 years or older, in Woodbine are high school graduates compared to Davidson
County. Also, both males and females, 25 years or older, in the Woodbine area have slightly lower rates of
obtaining a bachelor‘s degree. Aside from those statistics, males and females in Woodbine have relatively
equal rates of school enrollment and school attainment.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 14


        Demographically, the student body of Davidson County is predominately comprised of White and
African American students, while the Woodbine student body has a significant proportion of Hispanic
students. In regard to suspensions, Glencliff Comprehensive High School has a considerable higher rate
than Davidson; Whites, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians all contributing relatively equal number of
suspensions. Another non-academic target area is attendance and turnover rates within the schools. The
state requires 93% attendance for grades K-12. Glencliff Elementary and Wright Middle School meet this
requirement, while the Glencliff High School does not, modeling after the failure of Davidson County‘s high
schools. Furthermore, the high schools in Davidson County, including Glencliff, failed to meet states
standards for the dropout rate, which is set at no more than 10% of students.
         The K-8 federal math target is 72.4%. Both Davidson County and Glencliff Elementary met this
requirement. Unfortunately, Wright Middle School did not meet these proficient standards. The K-8 federal
benchmark for reading, language arts, and writing is set at 77.1%. Davidson County achieved proficiency,
while Glencliff Elementary and Wright Middle School did not. Even though Wright Middle School is not
proficient, the white population present in the school did pass proficiency in both subject areas. The Asian
population achieved proficiency in math, but not in reading, language arts, and writing—a statistic differing
from Davidson county.
         Moving on to the high school arena, the 9-12 federal proficiency benchmark for Algebra I is 65.4%.
Neither Davidson County nor Glencliff High School is proficient, and although the white population in
Davidson County is proficient, that of Glencliff High falls short. The 9-12 federal proficiency benchmark for
English II is 86%. Both Davidson County and Glencliff High are proficient. Other drastic differences in
proficiency status are found in Algebra I. Only 36% of students in Davidson County are below proficiency,
while a staggering 63% at Glencliff High are below proficiency. On a positive note, in the subject of science
(Biology I) Glencliff High School has 57% above proficient, a number slightly higher than Davidson County
(51%).
         Another high school academic area of concern involves ACT scores. The minimum goal for students
is to achieve a 19; this is the minimal score for a student to enter a Tennessee public institution. Davidson
County as well as Glencliff High School received a ‗D‘ in this area which means they are slightly below the
minimal expectations. Schools receiving a ‗C‘ represent they have met the minimum requirement for
Tennessee: a score of 19.
         There are three general remarks about the schools in the project area regarding state assistance,
economics, and finance. First, in the 2002-03 school year, the state established a baseline criterion using
student performance information for measuring a specific schools progress against the federal benchmarks.
If a school did not meet ―Adequate Yearly Progress‖ in the first year, they were labeled a ―target school‖. All
four schools in the project area are labeled as ―target schools‖. Next, the percentage of economically
disadvantaged students in all of Davidson County‘s schools is 49.3%. The schools in Woodbine have an
overwhelmingly higher percentage with Glencliff Elementary having 77.7%, Wright Middle School 84%, and
Glencliff High School reporting 57.4% of its students to be economically disadvantaged. Lastly, the funding
of the schools is broken down into 3 sub categories: system, state, and national. The per pupil expenditures
funding from the local system is $8,095; $6,648.16 comes from state funding; $8,383 is nationally funded. In
general 59.7% of finance is covered locally; 31.7% by state; 8.5% by federal finance. Ending on a positive
note, all schools in the project area are labeled ―safe‖ in terms of state requirements.


F. Crime Statistics

Data Sources: Crime data are drawn from the Metro Police Department 2002 Crime statistics and the 2000
Census. Included in this information are number of incidents of crime by category for Woodbine and
Davidson County and the incident rates per 1000 persons of crime for Woodbine and Davidson County.
Because incident rates are standardized, the researchers divided the incident rate of crime for each
Woodbine category by the incident rate of crime for the whole of Davidson County in order to compare the
percentage increase or decrease of crime in Woodbine compared to Davidson County in general.
                                          2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 15


Table 14. 2002 Crime Rates for the Woodbine area and Davidson County
       Crime Category               Woodbine           Davidson County                                  W IR
                                 #   Incident Rate      #    Incident Rate                              D IR
Aggravated Assault            110    8.14           874      8.6                                    95%
Arson                         4      .3             172      .3                                     100%
Burglary                      258    19.1           7372     12.9                                   148%
Forgery/Fraud                 65     4.8            2316     4.1                                    117%
Harassment and Trespass       80     5.9            2976     5.2                                    113%
Homicide                      0      0.0            62       .1                                     n/a
Larceny (Theft)               618    45.7           24983    43.8                                   104%
Motor Vehicle Theft           135    10.0           4794     8.4                                    119%
Offense Against the Family    1      .1             228      .4                                     25%
Other                         366    27.1           15372    27.0                                   100%
Property Damage               62     4.6            2689     4.7                                    98%
Robbery                       30     2.2            2065     3.6                                    61%
Sex Offense                   2      .1             506      .9                                     11%
Simple Assault                359    26.5           14591    25.6                                   104%
Substance Abuse               87     6.4            5936     10.4                                   62%
Vandalism                     223    16.5           9478     16.6                                   99%
All Crimes                    2400 177.4            98414    172.7                                  103%
Total Persons                 13526                 569891
         Conclusions: Crime Rates. Overall, crime within the Woodbine area exceeded the rate for
Davidson County as a whole by only 3%. Moreover, in certain categories against persons, the Woodbine
area had a lower crime rate than the County. These include offenses against the family (25% as likely to
occur in Woodbine as in the County), robbery (61% as likely), sex offenses (11% as likely), and substance
abuse (62% as likely). Caution should be used when interpreting two of these categories (offenses against
the family and sex offense) since they are computed from a very small sample of incidents within Woodbine.
In contrast, certain categories of crime against property had a higher rate in Woodbine than in the rest of the
County. These include burglary (48% more likely in Woodbine than Davidson County), forgery and fraud
(17% more likely), harassment and trespass (13% more likely), and motor vehicle theft (19% more likely).
        Crime: 28 day analysis. Crime incident data were gathered from the Metropolitan Nashville Police
Department website for the inclusive dates of 8 November to 5 December, 2003. The website provided the
block and street on which the crime occurred, the estimated date and time of the offense, and the category of
the crime. One hundred and fifty-five (155) incidents of crime were recorded over this period for Woodbine
and the immediate surrounding area. Comparison statistics for Nashville-Davidson County from November
2002 were used as a means of comparison, because the statistics for Nashville-Davidson County from
November 2003 were not yet compiled on the website.
          Table 15 – Neighborhood crime statistics between 8 November – 5 December 2003

                      Crime Category                Woodbine                 Nashville
                      •   Seized Weapons                  3
                      •   Street Robbery                  8      12            220
                      •   Business Robbery                4
                      •   Shots Fired                     5
                      •   Residential Burglary            9
                                                                 33            746
                      •   Commercial Burglary             24
                      •   Theft from Auto                 40
                      •   Larceny                         33
                                                                 45            2736
                      •   Motor Vehicle Theft             12
                      •   Homicide                        0                    6
                      •   Forced Rape                     1                    31
                      •   Aggravated Assault              17                   524*

                      * Excluding simple assault
                      Source: Crime Map, Metro Nashville Government website
                      8 Nov. 2003 – 5 Dec. 2003 Crime Rates for Woodbine Area and Davidson County
                                            2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 16


Chart 1. Time Analysis of Woodbine Crime (11/8-12/5/2003: For each time period, the top number reports
the number of incidents and the bottom number reports the percentage of crime that number represents.)



                  Time Analysis of Crime
                                                          16 % of crime happens between
                                                          12 midnight and 1 am.
        17                                                42
       11%                                               27%
                                                                  10 PM - 1 AM
         28                                                       1 AM - 4 AM
        18%                                                       4 AM - 7 AM
                                                                  7 AM - 10 AM
                                                                  10 AM - 1 PM
                                                                  1 PM - 4 PM
                                                         11       4 PM - 7 PM
                                                         7%       7 PM - 10 PM
          18
         12%                                              8
                                                         5%
                        15                    15
                       10%                   10%

Chart 2 – Date Analysis of Woodbine Crime (from 8 November to 5 December 2003. For each period, the
number represents the number of incidents of crime over the four days.)



                             Date Analysis of Crime

  40
                                                    36
  35

  30
                        24
  25
                                                                                  21
             23                                                 23
  20
                                       20
  15

  10
        9 Nov - 12   13 Nov - 16   17 Nov - 20   21 Nov - 24   25 Nov - 28   29 Nov - 2
           Nov           Nov           Nov           Nov           Nov          Dec

Conclusions: 28 day Crime Statistics
         When analyzing the types of crime (See Table 15, excluding simple assault) that occurred in the
Woodbine community in a 28 day period, it can be inferred that there is a disproportionate amount of crimes
against property as opposed to crimes against the person. Two areas of high crime are revealed through the
table: robbery and burglary. First, 5.45% of all robberies occurred in Woodbine even though Woodbine
comprises only 2.37% of Nashville-Davidson County. Second, 4.4% of all Nashville-Davidson County
burglaries occurred in Woodbine, which again is higher than the expected 2.37%. The data from the crime
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 17


statistics on the Metro Nashville crime site and the 2002 crime rates from the Neighborhood Resource
Center both confirm the heightened rate of burglaries in the Woodbine community.
        In Chart 1 incidents were grouped according to the hour in which they occurred. This information
was aggregated to create eight three-hour blocks: 10 pm – 1 am, 1 am – 4 am, 4 am – 7 am, 7 am – 10 am,
10 am – 1pm, 1 pm – 4 pm, and 4 pm – 7 pm. The two time blocks with the highest frequency of crime were
the 4 pm – 7 pm block with 28 incidents and 18% of all crime, and the 10 pm – 1 am block with 42 incidents
and 27% of all crime. Combining these two hour blocks accounts for 45% of crime within the community.
The period with the least amount of crime was between 4 am and 7 am.
         Within the frequent crime time blocks, two hours had a higher frequency of crime than the other
hours: midnight to 1 am and 4 pm to 5 pm. From midnight to 1 am, 24 incident of crime occurred, accounting
for 15.5% of all crime, and from 4 pm to 5 pm, 12 incidents occurred, accounting for 7.75% of all crime in the
community. Theories explaining the higher frequency rate between 4 pm and 5 pm include the fact that
students are no longer in school, businesses often change from first to second shift during this time, and
there is more movement of people. More research is required to test these theories.
        In Chart 2 crime incidents were split into six four-day blocks: 9 November through 12 November, 13
November through 16 November, 17 November through 20 November, 21 November through 24 November,
25 November through 28 November, and 29 November through 2 December. The frequency of crime was
mainly uniform across the period besides the spike of 36 incidents of crime that occurred between 21
November and 24 November.
         The streets with the highest incident rate of crimes were Thompson Lane with 15 incidents, which
accounts for 9.6% of all crime, and Nolensville Road with 13 incidents, which accounts for 8.4% of all crime.
It should be noted that these two roads comprise the main business sections of the neighborhoods. Other
streets with frequent crime rates are Neese Street, with 3 incidents, which accounts for 1.9% of all crime, and
Foster with 3 incidents, which accounts for 1.9% of all crime. These four locations of highest frequency
together account for only 21.8% of crime, meaning the crimes are spread fairly evenly throughout the
community. This makes it difficult to predict, prevent, or identify just one or two causes of neighborhood
crime.
        The data used from the crime site only included data from the 28 days preceding 5 December. The
conclusions about the data could be strengthened by comparing these initial results with results from other
28-day periods.
         Recommendations: Based on these initial results, two recommendations could be considered in
relation to crime. First, the community would benefit from the formation of a Neighborhood Crime Watch
group. Neighborhood Watch groups can reduce crime, especially the incidence of crime against property
seen in the Woodbine community. The surrounding neighborhoods, including Radnor, Glencliff, Flatrock,
and Vultee, all have neighborhood watch groups. Additionally, Neighborhood Crime Watch groups have
often been shown to help mitigate fears of crime and increase perception of safety in the community. The
Metro Nashville Government website ( http://www.nashville.gov ) has access to information for starting a
Neighborhood Crime Watch group and coordinating efforts with the Metro Police Department.
        The second recommendation is to encourage the Metro Police Department to increase their
presence in the community between midnight and 1 am and 4 pm to 5 pm in order to reduce the incidents of
crime within these frequent crime hours.

G. Housing Affordability

         Using statistics from the Nashville Planning Commission, sale prices, and total appraisal values were
analyzed for all residential structures in the Woodbine neighborhood (*note statistics were not available for
Radnor and Glencliff areas). From 1998-2003, analysis revealed 86.96% of all residential structures to be
single family dwellings with an average total appraisal of $73,596 per home. This average is substantially
lower than the average total appraisal for housing units in Davidson County, $115,800. Thus, Woodbine is
significantly more affordable than surrounding areas in Davidson County. Also, each home has an average
annual price increase of $3,773. While the sale prices remain affordable, the values hold strong. Since
1920, the average total appraisal of all homes is $10,077 more than their sale prices.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 18


     TABLE 16. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY for Woodbine only (does not include Radnor & Glencliff)
Residential Sales from 1998-2003: Total #                    Average Sale Price     Average Total Appraisal
Total                                                 322                   $72,596                $74,011
Single Family Dwelling                     280 (86.96%)                     $72,213                $73,956
Duplex                                        25 (7.76%)                    $76,174                $78,259
Multi-Unit Structure                             3(0.1%)                    $75,750                $71,350
         Average Annual Increase in Average Home Sale Prices (www.nashville.gov )                   $3,773
          Average Total Appraisal of Housing Units in Davidson County (U.S. Census)               $115,800
All Residential Sales since 1920:                 Total #        Average Sale Price Average Total Appraisal
Total                                                 682                   $55,968                $75,827
Single Family Dwelling                       579 (84.9%)                    $65,064                $75,141
Duplex                                        93 (13.6%)                    $76,225                $53,186
Multi-Unit Structure                           10 (1.5%)                    $52,536               $108,555
H. Health: Data Sources: Perception of overall health data were obtained from the Metro Health Department
and are drawn from a survey conducted in former Metro Council districts 16 and 17. Disability information
was gathered from the 2000 Census, including tracts 173, 174.02, 175, and block group 1 of tract 174.01.
         Conclusions: Health Statistics. According to the health survey data from old Council districts 16
and 17, 19.6% of the respondents reported their overall health to be ―excellent,‖ 30.7% said ―very good‖,
34.1% said ―good‖, 11.9% said ―fair‖ and 3.6% said ―poor.‖ Thus, half the respondents rated their overall
health as very good or better and 84% reported it as ―good‖ or above. 12.7% had been told by a doctor that
they have asthma. 6.5% of the respondents answered that they have been diagnosed with diabetes. 22.9%
of the respondents answered ―yes‖ to having a high cholesterol diagnosis.
        The greatest health concern for South Nashville is revealed in Table 17, which indicates that based
on Census data, the area has a higher incidence of disabilities (an average of .42 disabilities per resident)
compared with Davidson County as a whole (.34 per person). Another large discrepancy is the average
number of disabilities per person 16 to 64 years old, which is .26 per person in South Nashville vs. .22 in the
County. 5.5% of people in the FRC area were classified as ―go-outside-home disability and only 4% in the
County qualified as the same. Nine percent of FRC area disabilities were employment disabilities vs. only
7.8% in the County. Another large discrepancy was the number of disabilities for people 65 and over at
14.5% for Woodbine, and only 10.2% for Davidson County.
 Table 17. Age By Types Of Disability For The Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 5 Years And
 Over With Disabilities [Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3]
                                 S. N‘ville  Davidson      S. N‘ville %    Davidson % FRC-Davidson %
                                 Total       Co. Total    of Total Pop. of Total Pop. Difference
 Total disabilities tallied:         5,548     193,056               42.1          33.8                    8.3
 Total disabilities: 5-15 yrs:         186        6,761               1.4            1.1                   0.3
 Sensory disability                      36         793               0.2            0.1                   0.1
 Physical disability                     29       1,029               0.2            0.1                   0.1
 Mental disability                       77       4,035               0.5            0.7                  -0.2
 Self-care disability                    44         904               0.3            0.1                   0.2
 Total disabilities: 16-64 yrs:      3,451     127,924               26.2          22.4                    3.8
 Sensory disability                    220      10,042                1.6            1.7                  -0.1
 Physical disability                   664      25,170                  5            4.4                   0.6
 Mental disability                     345      15,936                2.6            2.7                  -0.1
 Self-care disability                  215        7,617               1.6            1.3                   0.3
 Go-outside-home disability            726      24,338                5.5            4.2                   1.3
 Employment disability               1,281      44,821                9.7            7.8                   1.9
 Total disabilities: 65+ years:      1,911      58,371               14.5          10.2                    4.3
 Sensory disability                    251        9,240               1.9            1.6                   0.3
 Physical disability                   631      19,664                4.7            3.4                   1.3
 Mental disability                     245        7,979               1.8            1.3                   0.5
 Self-care disability                  300        7,078               2.2            1.2                      1
 Go-outside-home disability            484      14,410                3.6            2.5                   1.1
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 19


                                           IV. RESIDENT SURVEY

         A survey consisting of 119 questions was developed by Dr. Douglas Perkins and his undergraduate
class in September, 2003, in close consultation with the Director and Board of the Woodbine (now known as
South Nashville) Family Resource Center. The survey was conducted in two waves starting late October-
November, 2003, and resuming February-April, 2004. It took approximately 30 minutes to complete and was
conducted by local neighborhood residents and Vanderbilt University students on 30 randomly selected
blocks within the Glencliff-Radnor-Woodbine research area. One hundred and three residents completed the
surveys, two of which were on nonsampled blocks, including one of four conducted in a Spanish translation
(see Survey Sample Demographics section, below).
                       A. Questions 1-27: Neighborhood Concerns and Problems
         The following table depicts resident‘s responses to questions 1-18, which asked respondents to rate
how concerned they are with, or how big a problem, each of the following issues is with five being very
concerned (or very big problem) and one being not at all concerned. If individuals did not feel as if a
particular issue applied to them or they did not know how they felt about it a ―don‘t know/no answer‖ choice
was also available.
                Concerns in Neighborhood (Q1-10)/ Problems on One’s Block (Q11-18)
       (1 to 5 scale: 1=not at all concerned/not a problem, 5=very concerned/very big problem)

         Q9.Dental Care for low-income residents
       Q10.Vision Care for low-income residents
         Q5.Health care for low-income residents
                               Q7.Traffic problems
                  Q1.Need for affordable housing
    Q3.Lack of resident influence on development
   Q4.Neighborhoods ignored in favor of downtown
            Q2.Developers' influence on planning
           Q6.New commercial/industrial activity
                                        Q14.Crime
                          Q8.Lack of nearby jobs
                             Q.13.Stray dogs/cats
                         Q16.Sale of illegal drugs
                                  Q18.Drug abuse
                               Q17.Alcohol abuse
                                        Q11.Graffiti
                                Q15.Gang activity
                              Q12.Loud neighbors

                                                       1   1.5     2     2.5     3    3.5     4     4.5     5



        Top Neighborhood Concerns: Access to Healthcare, Affordable Housing & Development
Decision-making. The top three most important problems as rated by residents were, perhaps surprisingly,
health care, dental care and vision care for low income residents. (And this was before the threatened
collapse of Tenncare.) Each of those items averaged over 4 on the 1-5 scale and 60% of respondents
answered five, that they were ―very concerned‖ about the availability of dental, vision and health care for low
income residents.
       The next most important concern to residents was traffic problems at a mean of 3.9 (with 45% very
concerned).
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 20


         The next biggest problem is the need for affordable housing (3.7, 43% very concerned), followed
closely by several development issues in the neighborhood, including lack of resident influence on
development (3.65, 34% very concerned), developers influence in planning (3.62, 35.5% very concerned),
the neighborhood being ignored in favor of downtown development (3.62, 31% very concerned), and the
threat of new commercial or industrial activity (3.57, 42% very concerned).
       Further down the list of concerns were a lack of nearby jobs (3.14, 24.5% very concerned), stray
dogs and cats (3.06, 28.6% very concerned), and the lowest-rated concern: loud neighbors (2.16, 9% very
concerned).
        Resident Perceptions of Crime Problems. Residents rated crime and disorder on their block as
moderate problems, not as big a concern as healthcare, traffic, housing, or development issues, but still seen
as a serious problem by many. (Note: the difference may have been partly due to crime and disorder
questions (11-18) focusing on the respondents’ block whereas the other concerns focused on the entire
neighborhood; people tend to be less critical of their block than their neighborhood.) On a similar 1-5 scale
where 1 is not a problem and 5 is ―a very big problem on my block,‖ crime was rated 3.2 with 23.5% rating it
a very big problem. The sale of illegal drugs (2.79, 15.5% saying it is a very big problem), drug abuse (2.71,
15.5%), and alcohol abuse (2.71, 16.5%) were all rated as less of a problem although still of serious concern
to a minority of residents. Gang activity (with a mean of 2.34 on the 1-5 scale and 10.9% saying it is a very
big problem) was the lowest rated crime problem, which is a noteworthy positive for the area as it is the
greatest concern in some urban neighborhoods.
         Question 27 allowed respondents to voice what they believed to be the single biggest problem in
their neighborhood in an open ended question. Results to this question can be found in the table below.
                Q27. What is the single most important problem in your neighborhood?

               Traffic (speeding)                                                         19
               Crime (incl. car theft, safety at night, break-ins, gunfire, vandalism)    17
               Sidewalks                                                                  6
               Trouble with neighbors                                                     6
               Zoning/Codes                                                               6
               Stray dogs & cats                                                          6
               Immigrants (language & cultural barriers)                                  4
               Drugs/Alcohol                                                              4
               Youth gang/delinquency                                                     4
               Poor property maintenance                                                  4
               Rental Property                                                            3
               Dumping                                                                    2
               Schools                                                                    2
               Lack of Involvement with neighbors                                         2
               Police                                                                     1
               Housing affordability                                                      1
               Vacant housing                                                             1
               Segregation                                                                1
               Illegally parked cars                                                      1
               Not enough lighting                                                        1
               kids bused too far to middle school                                        1
               Lack of recreational facilities                                            1
               Need help for Seniors                                                      1
               lack of young residents                                                    1
               Homes are too small                                                        1
               Too many birds                                                             1

        The two issues that were identified as the biggest problems by most respondents were traffic,
including people speeding through the neighborhood, with 19 people saying it is the largest problem and
crime-related complaints, with 17 people saying this is the most important problem. The next four problems
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 21


(the lack of sidewalks, trouble with neighbors, zoning and codes issues, and stray animals) were tied with six
residents identifying each as most important. Next were the increasing immigrant population (cultural and
language barriers), drugs and alcohol-related problems, delinquency and the need for constructive
opportunities for youth, and poorly maintained homes and yards with four residents each identifying them as
most important problem in the neighborhood. Rental property was mentioned by three. The other fifteen
problems identified by residents were only mentioned by one or two people.
          In sum, respondents‘ answers to the first 18 questions indicate that residents are particularly
concerned about basic health, dental, and vision care for low-income residents, traffic, affordable housing,
and development issues in the neighborhood and being ignored on those issues. Of moderate concern are
crime-related and other ―quality-of-life‖ problems in the neighborhood. None of these issues should be
ignored, however—a majority of respondents had at least moderate concern (3, 4 or 5) for each question
except for graffiti, loud neighbors and gang activity. And it is possible that those are bigger issues for those
living close to the neighborhood‘s schools or commercial strips. And the responses to the open-ended
question (27) show that while traffic and crime may not be rated as the biggest problems by the entire
sample, they are spontaneously identified as the most important problems in the neighborhood by large
segments of the sample.

    B. Questions 19-24: Preferences for Housing Types, Retail, Industrial Land Use, & Restaurants

                                                              Less         Same Amount        More
Apartment buildings                                           60.4%        25.7%              13.9%
Duplexes                                                      50.5%        33.7%              15.8%
Single family homes                                           1.9%         22.3%              75.7%
Retail stores                                                 29.4%        38.2%              32.4%
Industrial property (factories, warehouses, railroads)        72.5%        17.6%               8.8%
Restaurants                                                   21.8%        33.7%              44.6%

          This section of the report examines residents‘ views about what types of buildings and development
they would like to see less, the same, or more of in the Flatrock Community. This is very important since
South Nashville is growing rapidly and investors are looking for profitable ways to develop the land. The
most significant concerns identified are that residents want to see less industrial property, duplexes, and
apartment buildings in the community. Residents are concerned that too much industrial property and
apartment buildings will hurt property values and may reduce sense of community and further decrease
communication between residents. 76% of residents responded they want to see more single family homes
in their community. Residents want Flatrock to be a residential area with a focus on family values. Also, 45%
of residents said they would like to see more restaurants and 33% would like to see more retail stores in their
communities. Finally, 38% of the residents felt there is no need to increase the number of retail stores and
34% felt there is no need for more restaurants.

                                              C. Crime and Fear

         Question 25: Fear of Crime/ Perceived Safety When Out at Night Alone in Neighborhood.
Residents were asked how safe they felt on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is very unsafe and 5 is very safe,
when out alone in their neighborhood at night. More respondents felt safe (42.2%) than unsafe (30.4%).
When almost a third of the community is afraid to be out in their own neighborhood at night, however, that
suggests a problem that needs to be addressed by resident organizations, police, and planners (as fear has
at least as much to do with environmental design and maintenance as with crime, per se).

                 Perceived Feeling of Safety in Neighborhood When Out Alone at Night:
  Level of          1- Very
                                       2              3            4        5- Very Safe:
  Safety:          Unsafe:
% Perceived
                     17.6%            12.7%              27.5%           22.5%             19.6%
  Safety:
                                            2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 22


          Question 26: Victims of Crime in the Last Three Years, Type of Crime, and Location. Residents
were asked if they or any members of their household had been the victim of a crime in the last three years.
If the respondent answered yes, they were then asked if the crime was committed against the person
(mugging, assault, etc.) or against property (break-in, burglary, robbery, etc.). One third (33%) of
respondents (or a member of their household) had been the victim of a crime in the previous three years.
This indicates that, based on this sample, the actual crime rate in the area may be substantially higher than
officially reported crimes would indicate. Of the crimes reported in this survey, 21.6% were committed
against the person (assault, mugging, etc.) while 78.4% were committed against property (burglary, robbery,
break-in, etc.). 68.4% of all crimes reported in the survey were committed within the neighborhood.

               D. Questions 28-48: Satisfaction with City Services, Community & Home:
                                 1=very unsatisfied, 5=very satisfied


                                      1.0      1.5     2.0     2.5      3.0     3.5      4.0      4.5       5.0

             Q46.House liveability
              Q29. Fire protection
          Q30.Garbage collection
             Q47.Front yard looks
              Q45.Block liveability
              Q32.Sew er service
      Q44.Neighborhood liveability
         Q48.Outside house looks
            Q28. Police protection
          Q34.Community Centers
         Q31.Public transportation
           Q41.Quality of housing
    Q43.Quality of public schools
    Q42.Availability of health care
           Q33.Code enforcement
        Q39.Conditions of streets
                       Q35. Parks
        Q38.Affordable child care
                 Q36.Greenw ays
       Q37.Safe places for teens
      Q40.Streets w ith sidew alks



         Satisfaction with Police, Fire Protection, Transit, Streets, Sidewalks, and Other Municipal
Services. The above graph shows the levels of satisfaction with public services and residents‘ own home
and community on a 1=5 scale where 1 is ―very unsatisfied‖ and 5 is ―very satisfied.‖ With regard to Metro
services, residents were generally most pleased with fire protection (mean = 4.36, 47.5% very satisfied),
garbage collection (4.33, 56.4% very satisfied), and sewer service (4.04, 41.2%). They were moderately
satisfied with the quality of police protection in their community (3.75, 30% very satisfied, 16% unsatisfied or
very unsatisfied), public transportation (3.52, 26.5% very satisfied, 25.3% unsatisfied or very unsatisfied; see
also Questions 49-51, below), neighborhood public schools (3.47, 24.7% very satisfied), code enforcement
(3.36, 23.3%), and street maintenance (3.34, 16.7%). The area with the lowest level of satisfaction is
sidewalks at 2.36 (with only 5% very satisfied and 57% unsatisfied or very unsatisfied). There is an
obvious need and cry from the community for sidewalks in their community. We are seeing a community that
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 23


wants to get out and enjoy its surroundings but feels unable to do so safely because of the lack of sidewalks.
There are many busy streets that are dangerous for pedestrians to traverse without the aide of sidewalks.

         Satisfaction with Neighborhood Recreation Spaces (see also Questions 49-51 & 82-84, below).
Parks, greenways, community centers and safe places for teens deserve special attention both because they
hold special importance for the development of community cohesion, identity, and quality of life and because
there was generally less satisfaction with them as compared to other public services. There was moderate
satisfaction with community centers in South Nashville (3.58 on the 1-5 scale, 59% satisfied or very satisfied,
15.9% unsatisfied or very unsatisfied). There was a little more unsatisfaction with local parks (3.28, 47.9%
satisfied or very satisfied, 31.3% unsatisfied or very unsatisfied). Residents were more unsatisfied
(51.8%) than satisfied (30.5%) with the lack of greenways (2.78). Residents were most unsatisfied
with the number of safe areas for youth and teens to hang out (2.45, 22.9% satisfied or very satisfied,
55.4% unsatisfied or very unsatisfied).

         Housing Quality and Availability of Health and Child Care. This section of the survey also
included satisfaction with neighborhood housing quality and the availability of primary healthcare and
affordable childcare, but since those are primarily private rather than public, we will cover them separately.
Residents were moderately satisfied with housing quality (3.48 on the 1-5 scale, 50% satisfied or very
satisfied, 13% unsatisfied or very unsatisfied). They were a little less satisfied with the availability of
primary healthcare (3.41, 46.3% satisfied or very satisfied, 26.9% unsatisfied or very unsatisfied).
Residents were particularly critical of the unavailability of affordable childcare (2.91, 25.9% satisfied
or very satisfied, 39.7% unsatisfied or very unsatisfied).

         Satisfaction with Neighborhood, Block, and Home. Residents were also asked how satisfied
they are with their neighborhood and own home as places to live on the same 1-5 scale, 1 being very
unsatisfied and 5 being very satisfied (see graph above and table below). These all reflect a fairly high level
of satisfaction. The neighborhood as a whole was rated on average 4.04, the block they live on 4.09, their
own house 4.38, their front yard 4.13, and the outside of their house 3.98. A large majority of respondents
were satisfied or very satisfied with their block, neighborhood, and especially their house as a place to live.

                                                     Very                                            Very
 Questions 44-48:                                    Unsatisfied                                     Satisfied
 How satisfied are you with…                         1               2         3           4         5
 Your neighborhood as a place to live                1.0%            5.8%      19.4%       35.9%     37.9%
 Your block as a place to live                       2.9%            3.9%      14.6%       38.8%     39.8%
 Your house as a place to live                       1.9%            3.9%      8.7%        25.2%     60.2%
 The way your front yard looks                       1.0%            5.9%      15.8%       33.7%     43.6%
 The way the outside of your house looks             2.9%            7.8%      15.5%       35.9%     37.9%

                  E. Questions 49-51: Transportation and Public Recreation Facilities

         Only 8.7% of residents reported using public transportation, which may be because 93% have their
own motor vehicle. However, Nolensville Road, Thompson Lane, and Antioch Pike are three of Nashville‘s
busiest and most important transportation arteries through working-class areas. If transit ridership is that low
in South Nashville, it poses a great challenge to MTA to keep fares low and improve service, especially to
this area. Question 51 reveals that 46.5% of residents use one or more of the public recreation facilities in
the neighborhood (e.g., park, playground, gym).

                F. Questions 82-84: Green Space, Jobs for Teens, Elderly Quality of Life

         When asked how they think the amount of green space (parks, lawns, areas of grass, plantings) in
their neighborhood compares to the amount in other neighborhoods in Nashville, fully half the residents
surveyed (49.5%) felt their neighborhood has less green space, 41% believed it was about the same
amount as elsewhere, and only 9% thought their neighborhood has more green space.
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 24


         When asked (Q83) how easy it is for a teenager in their neighborhood to find a job on a 1-5 scale
where 1 is ―very easy‖ and 5 is ―not at all easy,‖ the mean was 3.15, suggesting that residents perceive the
job market as very tight for young people in the neighborhood. Over 40% of respondents declined to answer
for lack of knowledge on the issue.
         In Question 84, the quality of life for the elderly in the neighborhood was rated 3.5 on a 1-5 scale
where 5 is ―excellent.‖ This is slightly better than the middle rating, but there is quite a bit of room for
improvement. Among the 12 residents surveyed who were over 65 years old, the mean rating was only
slightly higher (3.6).

                         G. General Community-focused Feelings and Behaviors

        In questions 52, 58 and 59, residents were asked how often they chatted with neighbors and
helped each other. Most respondents reported chatting with their neighbors a few times over the past
week. They were less likely to have borrowed or exchanged something with a neighbor, but a majority had
done so at least once in the past year and almost a third (30.1%) did so monthly or more often. A majority
(65%) of residents surveyed had also kept watch on a neighbor‘s home while they were away over the
preceding year and 21.4% reported doing so weekly or even daily. In Question 53, 67.6% of the
respondents reported knowing someone who would be willing to teach people how to read.


 During past week:                  0 times          1-2 times      3-6 times       7 or more
   52. Chats with neighbors          13.6%            26.2%           42.7%           17.5%

 In the past 12 months:              Never        <once/month        Monthly         Weekly            Daily
  58. Borrow/exchange things
         with neighbor               46.6%            23.3%           17.5%           8.7%             3.9%
 59. Watch neighbor‘s home           35.0%            31.1%           12.6%           10.7%           10.7%

         Question 54 asked residents what they call the neighborhood where they live (see chart, below).
This was an open-ended question, so answers varied. Just over half the respondents said Woodbine. The
rest said Glencliff, Radnor, Flatrock, or one of many unique names, such as their street name or ―off
Nolensville.‖ A few answered ―home‖ or ―peaceful‖ or ―friendly.‖ Almost 10% were not sure what to call their
neighborhood.

                                       Don't Know,
                                         9.7%             Flatrock, 5.8%

                               Other, 12.6%                      Glencliff, 15.5%


                                                                   Radnor, 7.8%




                                             Woodbine,
                                              53.4%
                                   What residents call their
                                       neighborhood
                                  (total>100% as some used 2 names)
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 25


         In response to Question 56, 29.4% of the respondents said they had worked with neighbors to
improve their block. Of those who answered ―yes‖, the most common activities reported were: ―cleaned
trash, ―yard work,‖ ―neighborhood watch,‖ or attended a meeting.
        Question 55 asked how many of their neighbors do they know by sight or name. The answers
ranged fairly evenly from none to almost all. What is somewhat surprising is that almost a quarter of the
residents said they would recognize none of their neighbors! In response to Question 57, residents felt they
had a moderate amount in common with their neighbors. Question 60 asked residents what they think
the public image of their neighborhood is. Most responded ―average‖ or ―good.‖

 55. How many people        57. How much do you feel you have            60. What do you think is the public
 do you know by sight?       in common with your neighbors?                image of your neighborhood?
        0 = None 23.2%            1 = Nothing in common 7.2%                                 0 = Poor 7.8%
       .25= < half 26.3%                 2 = A few things 19.6%                         1 = Average 35.3%
         .5 = Half 26.3%            3 = Average amount 42.3%                                2 = Good 45.1%
     .75 = > half 10.1%                   4 = Most things 20.6%                        3 = Excellent 10.8%
  1 = Almost all 14.1%               5 = A lot in common 10.3%
             Mean = .464                            Mean = 3.07                                 Mean = 1.58
          Similar to Question 57, Question 65 asks how strongly neighbors on the block share a sense of
community. On a 1 to 5 scale where 5 is very strong sense of community, the mean response was almost
right in the middle (3.07), which is on the low side compared with other communities in other cities.
         Question 61 asked residents how attached they feel to the block on which they live on a 1-5
scale where 1 is not at all attached and 5 is very attached. The average was 3.77, or moderately high
attachment, with 28% attached and 36% very attached. The fact that residents‘ sense of community with
their neighbors is lower suggests their block attachment may be based on other factors, such as the location,
attractiveness of the homes or yards, etc.
         Questions 62-64: Openness and Comfort with Neighbors of Different Backgrounds. The sense
of comfort with, or tolerance for, diversity in the Woodbine, Radnor, and Glencliff area is fairly strong. The
three questions asked how comfortable residents would feel about people of a different race, income level,
and educational level moving into the neighborhood. . On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is not at all comfortable and
5 is very comfortable, the average for the three questions was 4.27 and all three were over 4.2. As discussed
in the Census section (III), above, and Recommendations (Section VII), below, residents‘ generally high level
of tolerance suggests demographic diversity is a real community asset to be developed and capitalized on.
         Questions 66-79: Civic Responsibility, Knowledge and Participation of Residents. Question
66 asked how much responsibility residents feel they have for what happens in front of their homes. The
mean response on a 1-5 scale where 1 is ―very responsible‖ and 5 is ―not at all responsibile‖ was 2.3,
indicating a good degree of civic-mindedness and informal social control. But there is still room for
improvement.

                           Q66. Responsibility for what happens in front of house


                                5       3.1%

                  1=very     4                                20.6%
               responsible, 3                                 20.6%
                5=not at all 2                            17.5%
               responsible
                                1                                                    38.1%

                                    0          10          20             30           40
                                                         Percent
                                             2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 26


         Question 67 asked if the respondent is a registered voter; 79.2% said yes. 62.4% of the survey
sample reported voting in the past year. 88% of respondents think that Glencliff and Radnor
Neighborhood Associations should be involved in advocacy on local politics; 91% think that
Woodbine Community Organization should be so involved. 37.3% could correctly name their
councilperson while 66.7% could name the mayor of Nashville and the Governor of Tennessee. That
contrast is noteworthy in that when asked who they would go to if they wanted to get something done
in their neighborhood, the most common response was their council person. Other responses
included the Mayor‘s office, various Metro employees, and a variety of other responses (e.g., apartment
manager, neighbors, WCO‘s Mr. Terry, internet, yellow pages, school). Surprisingly, only one person
mentioned their church. 20% did not know who to contact, which suggests a resource flyer with contact
information ought to be distributed throughout the area.
         When asked (Q76) how effective city government is in helping them and their neighbors, on a
1 to 5 scale, the average response was only 2.98; 10% rated Metro as not at all effective (1), 20% said
mostly ineffective (2), and only 4% gave Metro a 5 (very effective)(see chart, below).

                              Q76.Effectiveness of city gvt. in helping nbrd.
                                     5           4.3%
                        1=not at     4                                   28.7%
                            all      3                                           37.2%
                        effective,
                         5=very      2                           20.2%
                        effective    1                  9.6%

                                         0              10       20        30        40
                                                               Percent


         In Question 77, respondents were asked if they had contacted the government or a council
member about a problem in the preceding 12 months. 22.5% said yes. Among those, 56.5% indicated
that the problem was addressed. Of those who had not contacted the government or councilperson, 50%
said they know who to contact and how to contact him/her.
        Question 78 asked whether, in the past year, they had attended a meeting or done any work for
each of the three main neighborhood organizations in the area. 7% had attended a Glencliff
Neighborhood Association meeting. 4% had attended a Radnor Neighborhood Association meeting. 11%
had attended a Woodbine Community Organization meeting. Over 70% of those surveyed felt that it is
important for them to be involved in efforts to improve their block, and 45.5% said it was very
important (Q79).
          Questions 80, 81, 85 & 86: Community Places and Symbols. These were open-ended questions
to elicit what things and places residents like most in the neighborhood. The majority responded that it is a
quiet, respectable neighborhood in a great location. When asked where they take out-of-town guests,
respondents mostly mentioned one of three themes: many could not say, others mentioned places outside
South Nashville, and the third group mentioned particular area restaurants (listed in data file). The residents‘
block, home, or a local park were stated as possible options for a postcard of their community. Many
respondents were unable to think of anything to represent their neighborhood.
       Question 87: Woodbine Newsletter. The WCO newsletter is potentially an important resource for
disseminating community information, but only 24.2% of the respondents said they receive it.

                           H. Questions 88-109: Survey Sample Demographics
        The last section of the resident survey was designed to obtain information pertaining to the
demographics (sex, race, homeownership, etc.) of the survey sample for comparison to the same variables
from the 2000 U.S. Census of the area. There were at least three demographic variables in which the survey
sample was not representative of the target community population parameters. As with most surveys,
women were over-represented (68%) compared to the general population.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 27


       In terms of ethnic/racial composition, the sample population was 75% Caucasian, 13% African-
American, and 7% Hispanic; in comparison to the Census which reports the FRC area is 67.8% Caucasian,
11% African-American, and 11.6% Hispanic.
         Among residents surveyed, 63% own their home, which is higher than the Census for the FRC 3-
tract core area (49.3%), the wider, 6-tract South Nashville area (44.6%), and even higher than the Davidson
County average (55.3%). The sample is fairly representative of the core area of Woodbine with 64.2%
homeowners, however.
         There is an average of 2.69 people in each residence which is higher than the neighborhood (2.2) or
city (2.3) population parameters, suggesting the survey sampled a higher proportion of families than singles.
        In regards to religion, 57.6% of the residents surveyed consider themselves Protestant; 19%
Catholic; 16% no affiliation. Small fractions of the people surveyed are Jewish (2%) and Buddhist (3%). The
majority of people interviewed reported living in a single-family home (84%), 11% live in an apartment
complex with 5 or more units, 3% live in a duplex, and 2% live in condominiums.
        Thus, the survey sample is very representative of the core Woodbine neighborhood, but slightly
under-represents men, Asian and Hispanic immigrants, renters and smaller households. Each variable in
the survey could be ―weighted‖ (adjusted) to more precisely estimate the true neighborhood values, but what
are presented in this report are the raw, unadjusted numbers.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 28


                                         V. BUSINESS SURVEY
A. Introduction
         The survey of businesses in the Woodbine/Radnor/Glencliff area was conducted in October-
November, 2003, by students in the undergraduate Systematic Inquiry course at Vanderbilt University, under
the direction of Dr. Douglas D. Perkins. We worked in conjunction with the staff and board of the Family
Resource Center (FRC) to develop the survey questions and data collection plan. The first draft was
prepared by revising a survey previously used by Dr. Perkins. The group then tailored the survey to be more
relevant to businesses and their relationship to the community. The survey was submitted to the FRC Board
to add questions and for approval. After pilot-testing the survey to check wording clarity and estimate the
time it would take to administer (approximately 15 minutes), the survey was put into final format.
         Survey information was obtained by randomly selecting business blocks in Woodbine and then
randomly assigning blocks to individual students, who went in pairs to assigned blocks and selected
businesses and asked employees to participate. We found it very difficult to persuade the employees to give
us 15 minutes of their time to complete a survey. On several occasions, we spent two hours in Woodbine,
without a single person agreeing to do the survey. We reorganized the way in which we presented the
survey to the employees, and provided a longer introduction about who we are and why we were there. We
feel that this helped increase the number of employees who agreed to complete the surveys.


B. Methods for Business Survey
         Participants. Groups of two students each were randomly assigned separate blocks of Nolensville
Pike, Thompson Lane, and Thompson Road within the FRC service area. Blocks were only selected if they
contained two or more businesses. While any staff were eligible to participate in the survey, interviewers
requested a manager or owner before asking for an employee‘s participation. A sample of 37 (12 business
owners, 21 managers, and 4 employees) completed the survey. Twenty-eight (76%) of the respondents
were male, 9 (24%) were female. Twelve (32%) lived in the Woodbine/Radnor/Glencliff area and 25 (68%)
lived outside the area.
          Measures. The survey consisted of 56 questions. The questions in the survey were designed to
address a wide variety of issues, including the success of the business, as well as the satisfaction level of
the employee/manager/boss with the surrounding area (with respect to beauty, safety, and economic
stability). The survey also questioned the proximity of the workplace to their home, their satisfaction with
local government/government spending, and asked for their main concerns about the community. The
questions were answered in a variety of ways: some were yes or no answers, some were ratings on a given
scale, others were short answer questions, and respondents were asked for additional comments. A
response of ―don‘t know‖ or ―no opinion‖ was also allowed for any question.
        Procedure. Information was collected from the businesses in the Woodbine community by
conducting in-person interviews. Before administering the survey, the students were trained to ensure that
each survey would be administered in the same way and would comply with the Code of Ethics. Once the
surveys were in final format, they were taken into the Woodbine/Radnor/Glencliff area by the trained
Vanderbilt students. The sampling strategy to select businesses was random and the goal of the surveyors
was to complete 40 business surveys. From a list of business blocks within the Woodbine community, the
survey administrators were assigned five blocks. The first group of two students had the first five blocks, the
second group had the second five blocks on the list, and so on. To be selected, each block had to have at
least two businesses. To keep selection of businesses systematic and unbiased, interviewers started with
the business with the lowest address number on the block, then skipped the next two businesses on the
same side of the street and approached the fourth business. This was continued on both sides of the street
if necessary.
          In their interview training, the students were instructed to interview as many managers or owners as
possible. Upon entering a business, the students would first ask if the owner or manager was available to
complete the survey. If they were unavailable, the students would ask if one of the employees would be
willing to participate instead. Finally, once the surveys were completed each question was coded and the
results were entered into a spreadsheet consisting of columns corresponding to each survey question.
                                                                  2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 29


C. Types and Age of Businesses
          The first survey question inquired into the type of business completing the survey. Out of the 37
businesses that participated, eight were liquor (store or bar), five were auto (gas, repair, etc), thirteen were
other retail, eight were offices or services, and one was other. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of the types
of businesses surveyed. As stated in the description of the participants, owners, managers, and employees
were all eligible to complete the survey. Of the 37 respondents, 12 (32%) were owners, 21 (57%) were
managers, and four (11%) were employees. The participants were asked to recollect to the best of their
ability, the year at which the business was started. The distribution of the responses ranged from 1964 to
present, however the majority of the responses indicated that most of the businesses had started in the last
ten years (see Figure 2). Fourteen of the businesses owned the property and 24 rented.
         As mentioned above, 12 of the participants lived in the Woodbine/Radnor/Glencliff area while 25 did
not. Of these 25 participants who indicated that they did not live in the area, only two indicated that they
would consider moving to the area, while 23 said they would not. When the participants were asked to
approximate the distance in miles between the business and their home, some of the participants overlooked
the directions and indicated the distance in minutes. Of the 33, two participants that replied in miles, the
range of answered spanned from a fourth of a mile to thirty miles, with an average distance of 7.73 miles. Of
the four participants who responded in minutes, three approximated a fifteen minute drive.
                                                                    Figure 1: Types of Businesses
                                                                                    Liquor (store or
                                                                                         bar)
                                                                            Other
                                                                                          6%        Auto (gas,
                                                                             3%
                                                                                                   repair, etc.)
                                                       Office/Service                                 14%
                                                            23%




                                                                                     Other Retail
                                                                                        54%


                                                                                 Figure 2:
                                                                        Age of Woodbine Businesses

                                           9

                                                                                                 8
                                           8


                                           7

                                                                                                            6       6        6
                                           6
                    Number of Businesses




                                           5

                                                                    4
                                           4

                                                                              3
                                           3

                                                                                       2
                                           2

                                                1          1
                                           1


                                           0

                                               1961-     1966-    1971-     1976-    1981-     1986-     1991-     1996-    2001-
                                               1965      1970     1975      1980     1985      1990      1995      2000    Present
                                                                            Year Business Opened
                                         2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 30


D. Satisfaction with City Services (Questions 10-18)
         Overall, the majority of respondents were satisfied with the nine different services mentioned, with
each question receiving an average rating of 3 or above. It appears that the majority of businesses are very
satisfied with water and sewer services in the area with 21 participants (56.7%) ranking it as a 5, but the
most unhappy with quality of commercial property with 9 participants ranking it as a 1 or 2 (24.3%). On that
note, questions pertaining with the appearance of the area, such as the conditions of streets, and the number
of streets with sidewalks received some of the lowest average rankings (3.73 and 3.57 respectively) but also
had a large portion of participants rating these services as a 5 (11 people/ 29.7% for each) [See Figure
below]. Interestingly, the majority of respondents (24 people/64.8%) did not know how they felt about the
availability of affordable childcare, with most participants saying that they did not have children, or that they
did not use services in the area. This is interesting to note, since one would assume that most workers and
managers would have to use childcare services during the workday or owners would have to provide the
service for their employees and they would have a stronger opinion on it.

                                   Satisfaction with Services & Property

                                                           1=very unsatisfied, 5=very satisfied
                                                   1.0   1.5   2.0   2.5   3.0    3.5      4.0     4.5     5.0

                           Q10.Police protection                                        3.583

                             Q11.Fire Protection                                                   4.367

                         Q12.Garbage Collection                                            3.893

                       Q13.Public Transportation                                                 4.161

                     Q14.Water & Sewer Service                                                      4.429

                        Q15.Afforable Child Care                                                 4.222

                       Q16.Conditions of Streets                                         3.730

                     Q17.Streets with Sidewalks                                         3.571

             Q18.Quality of Commercial Property                                         3.571


          Police and fire protection are always of great importance to a thriving community, and Woodbine is
no different. 3 respondents (8.1%) were very unsatisfied with police protection, and 14 respondents (37.8%)
were very satisfied, giving police protection an overall score of 3.58 in terms of satisfaction levels. This
information shows that business owners, managers, and employees have varied views on the quality of
police in the area. Fire protection received an impressive overall ranking of 4.37, with no one rating it a 1, 18
people (48.6%) answering that they were very satisfied with the service, and 7 (18.9%) saying they did not
know. This answer may be biased by the fact that most businesses commented that they had never had a
fire, or had never seen fires in the area, causing respondents to come to the conclusion that they were
satisfied with the fire department since fire not been a problem yet.
         Public transportation also received a high overall satisfaction rating from participants with an average
of 4.03. The breakdown of these answers shows that 13 of those that responded (35.1%) were very satisfied
with the quality, amount, and availability of public transportation with only 1 person (2.7%) saying they were
very unsatisfied. Garbage collection was also seen as very satisfactory, with 10 participants giving it a score
of 5 (27%), only 2 (5.4) ranking their opinion as very unsatisfied, and 10 (27%) said they did not know.
        Conclusions and Implications
        The results of this survey give a good overall impression of the Woodbine community, since the
majority of respondents were satisfied with each of the city services listed. However, most of these answers
do not give information regarding opinions on affordability or availability of services, such as public
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 31


transportation or garbage collection, making it hard to judge where their dissatisfaction could stem from. In
addition, while it is important to gain opinions of the number of streets with sidewalks, opinions on the
conditions of these sidewalks are not addressed.
          Despite these shortcomings, information gathered through this survey can be used to assess which
services deserve more government spending, and what members of the business community view as
important. It also paints a picture of what conditions are like in Woodbine, for example, the fact that most
respondents are satisfied with garbage collection gives an impression of the appearance of the area, how
efficient the garbage collection company is at their job, and how often garbage is collected. The large
amount of ―don‘t know‖ for this question (27%) also reveals that a majority of businesses probably contract
private companies to collect their dumpsters, and more research should be conducted as to why this is so.
Perhaps the city charges too much for garbage collection, or does not have the resources to accommodate
the large amounts of trash most businesses accumulate through a week. Research in this area could lead to
changes in the way the city conducts its garbage collection and these changes might put more money back
into the community instead of large garbage companies outside of Woodbine.
         A large number of participants also answered that they did not know about public transportation
(21.6%), implying that many use cars to get around the community. Further research should be done in this
area to find reasons why some people do not use public transportation, whether it be lack of awareness,
cost, poor service, or concerns with safety.
         Police protection is perhaps the area which reveals the most about Woodbine. High overall rates of
satisfaction could point to one of two things: that crime is low in Woodbine, or that police are efficient in
dealing with crime in the area. This also reveals opinions about feelings of safety in Woodbine, showing that
most people in the business community feel confident that their police department will save them from harm.
E. Satisfaction with the Neighborhood as a Place for Business: Questions 7-9, 19-20
        Questions 7-9 and 19-20 addressed contentment with conducting one‘s business in the Woodbine
area. In question 7, business owners, managers, and employees were asked to rate how happy or unhappy
they would be, if for any reason their business had to move to another neighborhood, on a scale from 1 to 5
(1 being very unhappy and 5 being very happy) or as a 6 if they did not know (see Table 1). Most
respondents gave a rating of 3, indicating most people would neither be very unhappy nor very happy if their
business had to move. The second highest response was 1, and 6 respondents did not know. The average
response was 2.32 for the 31 ratings between 1 and 5.
         In questions 8 and 9 (Tables 2 and 3, respectively and Graph 2), they were asked to rate how
satisfied they were with the neighborhood as a place to do business and the way the outside of the property
looks. A scale of 1 to 5 was once again used to respond, with 1 being very unsatisfied and 5 being very
satisfied, or respondents could choose 6 if they did not know. For question 8, most responses were also 3,
and 88.9% of respondents, who rated their satisfaction from 1-5, rated their satisfaction as a 3 or higher.
The average was therefore a 3.72. Not a single respondent out of the 37 surveyed rated themselves as
being very unsatisfied, a 1, with the neighborhood as a place to do business. Most responses to question 9
were either a 2, 10 respondents, or a 4, 11 respondents. Businesses in the Woodbine area did not feel
strongly either in terms of being very satisfied or very unsatisfied regarding the outside appearance of the
business. The average rating was a therefore a 3.14, directly in the middle of 1 and 5.
        Question 19 (see Table 4), asked what the business owners, managers, or employees thought about
the public image of the neighborhood, allowing participants to respond ―Excellent,‖ ―Good,‖ ―Fair,‖ or ―Poor.‖
Most responses, 33 of the 37 total, were ―good‖ or ―fair,‖ together consisting of 89.1% of the total responses
(see Graph 3). Only one participant rated the public image of the neighborhood as excellent. Question 20
(see Table 5), asked whether, in the next 5 years, respondents thought the overall conditions on that block
would ―get better,‖ ―stay the same,‖ or ―get worse.‖ 30 of the total 37 responses were ―get better‖ or ―stay the
same,‖ consisting of 81% of the total responses (see Graph 4).
         These findings suggest that, overall, business personnel in South Nashville are presently content
with the neighborhood and believe it will improve in the future. The averages of questions 7-9, targeting
happiness if the business had to move, satisfaction of the neighborhood as a place to do business, and the
way the outside of the property looks, were are approximately 3, the middle score between 1 and 5. This
confirms that while business owners and employees in the Woodbine area may not consider themselves to
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 32


be very unsatisfied, improvements can and should be made to increase their level of satisfaction. Additional
research should be conducted to further understand why respondents may have rated their happiness or
satisfaction as a 1 or 2. In addition, if it is known exactly why respondents chose 4 and 5, organizations and
the city government can try to continue making improvements in that respect. For instance, respondents
replying that they would be happy or unhappy if their business had to move outside of the Woodbine area
could be dependent on their relations with customers or other businesses. Their response may have relied
on other factors such as economic advantages or disadvantages to conduct business in Woodbine. In
addition, it is worthy to note that, overall, respondents were more satisfied with the neighborhood as a place
to do business than with the way the outside of the property looks (Graph 2), indicating that their satisfaction
with conducting business in the Woodbine area is not contingent on the outside appearance of the property.
Further research should concern what factors contribute or do not affect one‘s opinion of the Woodbine area
as a sufficient place to conduct business.
         There is some evidence that the condition of buildings in this area may be deteriorating. This
information should be used by the local government to do further research on new businesses coming to the
area and the condition of the current buildings. Perhaps the city should undertake a large renovation project,
or place stricter restrictions on the appearance of buildings to ensure that conditions will not continue to
decline. With this, as with all of the services mentioned, judging satisfaction rates serves as a springboard
for further research on what specific parts of these services have caused such high satisfaction or what
areas need improvement. It may also be necessary to conduct a follow-up survey in the upcoming years to
see if the recommended improvements have made a difference.

Table 1: Question 7. If this business had to move to another neighborhood, would you be…
 Rating               Frequency Percentage
     Very unhappy 1            10      32.25%
                   2            5      16.13%
                   3           14      45.16%
                   4            0          0%
        Very happy 5            2       6.45%
           Avg=2.32 total = 31

Tables 2 & 3. How satisfied are you with each of the following items?
8. This neighborhood as a place to do business       9. The way the outside of this property looks
 Rating               Frequency Percent               Rating               Frequency Percentage
   Very unsatisfied 1          0          0            Very unsatisfied 1            3         8.11%
                    2          4 11.11%                                  2          10       27.03%
                    3         12 33.33%                                  3           8       21.62%
                    4         10 27.78%                                  4          11       29.73%
     Very satisfied 5         10 27.78%                   Very satisfied 5           5       13.51%
           Avg=3.72 Total = 36                                  Avg=3.14 total = 37
                                               2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 33



                          Satisfaction with Neighborhood as a place to do Business and
                                             Appearance of the Proprty


                                                                   12
                           12
                                                                                      11
                                                       10                       10             10
                           10

                                                                         8
                            8


                Frequency 6
                                                                                                    5         the neighborhood
                                                   4                                                          outside of this propery
                            4
                                        3

                            2

                                   0
                            0
                                    1              2                3            4             5
                                                                  Rating



                                                                     Graph 2

 Table 4. What is the public image of this                                    Table 5. In the next five years, do you feel that the
 neighborhood?                                                                    overall conditions on this block will…
 Description Rating       Frequency Percentage                                Description       Rating      Frequency Percentage
 Excellent             1           1        2.70%                             Get Better                 1          12       32.43%
 Good                  2         16        43.24%                             Stay the Same              2          18       48.65%
 Fair                  3         17        45.95%                             Get Worse                  3           7       18.92%
 Poor                  4           3        8.11%                                               Avg=1.86 total = 37
              Avg=2.59 total = 37

F. Block Problems
         The survey questions that will be discussed in this portion of the paper are items 21-30. On
questions 21-27, the possible responses range from 1-5, with 1 indicating that an item is not a problem and 5
indicating a very big problem.
                                                        Problems on the Block

                                                                        1=not a problem, 5=very big problem
                                               1            1.5          2      2.5        3            3.5   4       4.5        5


                                Q21.Graffiti                                 2.083

                       Q22.Loud neighbors                                1.946

                      Q23.Stray dogs/cats                                            2.528

                                Q24.Crime                                                           3.216

                         Q25.Gang Activity                                            2.567

                  Q26.Loitering/Solicitation                                                    3.135

                  Q27.Litter/Trash in street                                                    3.135
                                          2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 34


         Overall, most respondents did not rate any of the items as major problems. The biggest problems
identified were crime, loitering and solicitations, and litter, but they were only slightly over the midpoint on the
scale (i.e., moderate problems). Graffiti was not seen as a serious problem. Youth gang activity was only of
moderate concern. As crime was seen as a slightly bigger problem, the following graph provides a closer
look at the distribution of responses.
                                Q24.How big a problem is crime on this block?

                        16
                                                            38%
                        14
                        12
                        10                                                 24%
                         8
                                                                                         16%
                         6      13.5%
                         4                      8%
                         2
                         0
                               1-not a          2             3             4       5-very big
                               problem                                               problem



       Question 22 focuses on whether or not ―loud neighbors are a problem in the Woodbine community.
Over 40% of the respondents did not have problems with loud neighbors. Although a large portion did not
have problems in this area, it is important to no note that nearly 19% of the respondents are having very big
problems with loud neighbors. This is an interesting distribution that should be addressed to find out which
businesses are creating enough noise that it is bothering other employees.
        Question 23 asks the individual to rate ―how much of a problem are stray dogs and cats on the
block‖. The chart below shows the distribution of responses. As the chart indicates, nearly 60% of the
respondents did not feel that stray animals pose a large problem. However, one should note that slightly
over 10% of the respondents felt that stray animals are a ―very big problem‖. It is possible that there are
varying numbers of stray animals depending on the block, which could account for the difference in
responses. Overall, stray animals do not seem to be perceived as a large problem by the business owners.
         Question #26: The issue explored in this question is the amount of loitering and solicitation. The bar
graph below shows the variation in responses on this topic. This graph shows that the distribution between
the number of employees who think that loitering and solicitation is not a problem is about equal to the
number of employees who feel that it is a very big problem. It is also interesting to note that the mid range
responses, 2-4, are about equal as well. Perhaps certain sections of Woodbine have more problems with
this issue due to where solicitors and loiterers live within the community. This problem could be addressed
with more aggressive policies against solicitation and by more police patrolling to control loitering.


                             Respsonses to Question 26, Loitering and Solicitation


                                                                                    24.32%
                                 25.00%
                                           21.60%
                                 20.00%
                                                     16.21%       16.21%
               % of Respondents 15.00%                                     13.50%
                Who Selected
                Each Response 10.00%                                                             Series1

                                 5.00%

                                 0.00%
                                            1         2            3        4        5
                                                          Response Number
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 35


Question #27:
          The main focus of this question is the amount of litter and trash in the streets of the community.
Refer to the diagram below for exact distributions. The distribution of the responses for this question is
similar to that of question 26. Again, the number of people who feel that litter and trash is a large problem is
about equal to those who feel it is not a problem. Although the numbers are about equal, it is important to
evaluate why nearly 30% of the employees surveyed feel that trash is a very big problem. Since trash and
litter adversely affect the overall image of a community, this is an important topic to explore. Another
interesting component of the distributions is that the mid range responses of 2-4 are approximately equal.

                               Responses to Question 27, Litter and Trash

                                                                              29.72%
                               30.00%    27.02%
                               25.00%

              % of Respondents 20.00%              16.21%   16.21%
              that Chose Each 15.00%
                                                                     10.81%
                   Number                                                                  Series1
                               10.00%
                                5.00%
                                0.00%
                                          1         2        3        4        5
                                                  Response Choice Numbers



Question #28:
This question differs because it is not evaluated on a six point scale. The two options were either yes or no
in response to the question “are there any businesses in the neighborhood that are a problem?” The
vast majority of those surveyed, 79%, do not think that there are problems with other businesses. Although
this is the majority, the 21% who do have problems with other businesses is still a large number of
individuals. It is difficult to speculate why some employees perceive more problems with businesses than
others. This is another topic that needs more exploration in order to form a hypothesis.

Question #29:
        This question asks ―is there a problem on this block that I haven‘t mentioned?‖ Since this is an open
ended question, the responses were grouped according to similarity and were coded accordingly. There
were six different categories including traffic, parking, crime, pedestrians, vacancy, and nothing. The pie
chart below shows the distribution of these different groups.
          The majority of respondents fit into category number six, and responded that there were no
additional problems not mentioned in the survey. The two categories that had the most responses were
traffic, with 11% response rate, and crime, with 8% response rate. The other categories, parking,
pedestrians, and vacancy only had a few individuals respond with comments that fit into those categories.

Question #30:
         This open ended question asked ―what is the most important problem in the community?‖ There
was a wide variety of responses to this question. Once again, the different answers were grouped according
to similarity and coded accordingly. The different categories are listed at the top of the chart, below the title.
                                                  2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 36



           Responses to Question30 What is the Biggest Problem in the
                               Neighborhood?




            Number Categories: 1. Traffic 2. Parking 3. Loitering 4. Street Conditions 5. Crime 6. Appearance
                               7. N/A 8. Don't Know 9. Drugs 10. Property Issues 11. Other


                            45.00%

                                              1
                            40.00%


                            35.00%
                                                                              5

                            30.00%


      % of Respondents 25.00%
        Who Selected
       Each Response                                          3
                                                                                                                              Series 1
            Type       20.00%


                            15.00%
                                                                                      6
                                                      2
                            10.00%
                                                                                                                         11

                                                                      4                       7               9    10
                             5.00%
                                                                                                      8

                             0.00%
                                          1       2       3       4       5       6       7       8       9       10    11
                                                              Response Number Selected




This bar graph shows that there is a wide variety of responses about the most important problem in the
community. Many respondents gave more than one item that is the most important problem in the
neighborhood. About 40% of the respondents feel that traffic is the largest problem. The next largest
problem is crime, which had a response rate of just under 35%. Loitering and Street conditions were also
frequent responses. The other problems mentioned were approximately the same in terms of distribution.
G. Business Association Interest: Questions 31-33
        Question 31 asked if in the past 2 years the respondent had attended a meeting of any community
organization in the area. This question provides a good sense of how active the business leaders are in the
community. Out of the 37 interviewees, 34 (92%) had not attended a community meeting in the past 2 years
and only 3 had. In addition, if the respondent answered ―yes,‖ they were asked to specify which
organization. All three of the responses differed. One person had attended a meeting of the Metropolitan
Development and Housing Authority, another attended a meeting concerning the Community Center and the
third went to a meeting of the Southern Business Council.
         Currently, there is not an established business association in Woodbine, so question 32 asks the
business interviewees if one existed would he/she be willing to join. Of the 37 responses, 16 (43%) said they
would join a local business association and 21 (57%) said they would not join. In addition, when asked to
give a reason why they would or would not join a local business association, the most popular reason why
the respondents would not join is ―no time‖ (42%) and 37% of those who said they would join said they would
join to ―make a difference.‖ The complete breakdown of the reasons is listed in Charts 32a and 32b below.
Graphical and percentage representations for these responses are shown in Figure 32a and Figure 32b. For
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 37


Figure 32a, the category ―N/A‖ includes the responses, (1) the owner already belongs to an association, (2)
the owners don‘t speak English (3) the respondent doesn‘t own the property, (4) the responded doesn‘t think
there are any big problems, and (5) don‘t know. For Figure 32b, the category ―Other‖ includes the
responses, (1) profitability and (2) the respondent is usually involved in committees.
Chart 32a                                                   Figure 32a
Total “No” =              21                   Q32a. If "NO", why wouldn't you join a local business
Reason:               Frequency                                    association
No Time                    9
Part of Corporation        2
Ineffective                3
No Need                    2                        24%


                                                                                                          No Time
                                                                                     42%                  Part of Corporation
                                                                                                          Ineffective
                                                                                                          No Need
                                              10%                                                         N/A




                                                      14%
                                                                      10%


N/A                       5

Chart 32b                                                              Figure 32b
Total “Yes” =               16                      Q32b. If "YES", why would you join a local business association
Reason:                 Frequency
To make a difference         6
Learn from others            3                                 13%

Other                        5
Don‘t Know                   2
                                                                                         37%               To make a difference

                                                                                                           Lean from others

                                                                                                           Other

                                                      31%                                                 Don‘t Know




                                                                            19%




        From question 33, it was found that only 16% (6 respondents) had contacted a government agency
or council member in the past 12 months, and the overwhelming majority (84%) had not. For those who had
contacted someone, 2 respondents contacted the police, 1 respondent contacted their State representative,
and 3 contacted their City Councilperson.

H. City Commitment & Effectiveness for Neighborhood Business
        On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the ―not at all‖ and 5 being ―very‖), the average perception of how
committed the city government is to helping businesses is 2.71, and the average perception of how effective
city government is to helping businesses is 2.61 (Charts 43 & 44). More specifically, for question 43 (How
committed do you think city government is to helping business in this neighborhood?), 13.5% of respondents
                                                                      2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 38


ranked the city government as ―Not Committed‖ (rating of 1) and 2.7% said city government was ―Very
Committed‖ (rating of 5). Question 44 asked interviewees how effective he/she thought that city government
is to helping businesses in the neighborhood, and 13.5% of respondents said the city government was ―Not
Effective‖ (ranking of 1) and 0.0% of respondents said the city government was ―Very Effective‖ (ranking of
5). For a complete graphical representation of all the rankings please refer to Figure 43.

                  Table 43                                                                                                  Table 44
     Ranking         Frequency                                              Percent           Ranking                     Frequency    Percentage
 Very Committed 5         1                                                   2.7%         Very Effective 5                    0          0.0%
         4                7                                                  18.9%                4                            5         13.5%
         3               10                                                  27.0%                3                           14         37.8%
         2                8                                                  21.6%                2                            7         18.9%
 Not Committed 1          5                                                  13.5%         Not Effective 1                     5         13.5%
    Don’t Know            6                                                  16.2%           Don’t Know                        6         16.2%
   Average=2.71                                                                           Average=2.61


                                                    Q43 & Q44. How Committed/Effective Do You Think The City
                                                    Government is to Helping Businesses In This Neighborhood?


                                            40.0%
                                                                                  37.8%



                                            35.0%




                                            30.0%

                                                                            27.0%
                Percentage of Respondents




                                            25.0%


                                                                   21.6%

                                            20.0%                         18.9%           18.9%


                                                                                                               16.2% 16.2%

                                            15.0%
                                                     13.5%
                                                                                                    13.5%
                                                           13.5%


                                            10.0%




                                            5.0%
                                                                                                        2.7%


                                                                                                             0.0%
                                            0.0%
                                                   Not (1)
                                               Committed              2           3             4       Very (5)   Don‘t Know
                                               Effective                              Ranking


                                                                                      Figure 43
                                                 2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 39


Question 34. What would you most like the city to spend more money on in this neighborhood?
# of Responses         Category
       10                Police                       Street              Question 34
       14           Neighborhood            Traffic Conditions
                     Beautification       Problems     6%
        3              Sidewalks             6%                               Police
                                                                  Police
        2          Traffic Problems     Sidewalks                  32%
        2          Street Conditions       10%                                Beautification

                                                                                                   Sidewalks

                                                                                                   Traffic
                                                                                                   Problems
                                                         Beautifica-                               Street
                                                            tion                                   Conditions
                                                           46%



                                                  Figure 2 (Questions 35-42)

                                          Should The Government Spend?

                                     18


                                     16


                                     14


                                     12                                               Improving Commercial Property
                                                                                      Streets, Sidewalks, Curbs
  # of Responses




                                                                                      Street Lighting
                                     10
                                                                                      Neighborhood Beautification
                                                                                      Encouraging New Housing
                                      8
                                                                                      Encouraging New Business
                                                                                      Public Transportation
                                      6                                               Parks/Green Space

                                      4


                                      2


                                      0
                                                              A little
                                          Less    Same                   A lot More
                                                              More
                   Improving               1        9           17           7
                   Commercial
                   Property
                   Streets, Sidewalks,     1        8           13          15
                   Curbs
                   Street Lighting         1        11          12          12
                   Neighborhood            0        8           13          16
                   Beautification
                   Encouraging New         2        8           12          13
                   Housing
                   Encouraging New         2        6           13          13
                   Business
                   Public                  1        16          11           7
                   Transportation
                   Parks/Green Space       1        10          11          15
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 40



Table 2: Should the city spend less, the same or more on the following items (0=LESS, 1=THE SAME
AMOUNT, 2=A LITTLE MORE, 3=A LOT MORE):
  ITEM:                                       Mean      Mode Median
  35. Improving existing commercial property      1.88 2         2
  36. Streets, sidewalks and curbs                2.14 3         2
  37. Improving street lighting                   1.97 2         2
  38. Beautification of neighborhood              2.22 3         2
  39. Encouraging new housing                     2.00 3         2
  40. Encouraging new businesses                  2.09 2         2
  41. Public transportation                       1.69 1         2
  42. Parks and green-space                       2.05 3         2

         Discussion. Questions 34-42 were included in this study to assess business views of government
spending. This is useful in determining where funding should be allocated and to what areas the WCO
should lobby the city and county to direct funds. It is important to understand the needs of businesses since
their success directly impacts the community by creating jobs, providing tax revenue, and supplying needed
goods and services. Businesses are an essential backbone to any neighborhood. They are also institutions
for social interaction among community members much like churches. Question 34 provided the survey
participant with the chance to supply their own answer to the question: ―What would you most like the city to
spend more money on in this neighborhood?‖ Overwhelmingly, participants noted police and neighborhood
beautification as areas needing more metro spending. Businesses are extremely interested in police
protection because crime victimization can impact their profits through theft and reduced revenue from
customers who feel unsafe patronizing certain locations. Increased spending on neighborhood beautification
would improve the physical areas surrounding these businesses. Certainly, customers would rather visit a
business located in a nice-looking community. The WCO should focus on encouraging the city to spend
more money on additional police patrols and neighborhood beautification projects since directing spending to
these areas would likely improve local businesses, creating local economic growth.
          Questions 35-42 were included to amass opinions regarding current government spending on
specific areas. As the data shows, questions 36 and 38 have the highest mean, mode, and median. These
results stand out in Figure 2 and more clearly in Figure 3. Figure 5 presents the number of responses for
each answer for both questions in the same chart. Question 36 asked if the government should spend more
money on streets, sidewalks, and curbs. Question 36 asked about a related category: beautification of
neighborhood. Interestingly, this was the most frequently mentioned response in the open-ended spending
question. There seems to be a consensus among businesses in the study area that overall appearance of
their neighborhood including the conditions of streets, sidewalks, and curbs are of primary concern. This is
bolstered by the high average of question 42 which deals with spending on parks and green space. Clearly,
the WCO should address these needs. Perhaps the organization could create a matching funds program in
which it matches funds provided by local businesses for specific projects aimed at improving neighborhood
appearance. The organization should also make local governments aware of these concerns and lobby for
increased funding in these areas. Ms. Elkins, director of the Family Resource Center at WCO, mentioned
that the city was improving a section of Nolensville Road. Efforts like this one should be expanded.

I. Safety Issues: Questions 46 & 47
         The perception of crime as at least a moderate problem in the area is understandable when one
considers that 61% of the businesses surveyed had been victimized by crime during the preceding 3 years.
When asked in Question 46 how safe they feel going to their car or the bus stop after work at night, on a 1-5
scale where 1 is very safe and 5 is not at all safe, the average response was a 3, which is only moderately
safe, but the distribution was fairly even with many saying safe and 10 (28%) saying not at all safe. 61%
said moderately (3) to not at all safe (5).

J. Business Indicators and Size: Questions 48-54
         Knowing the make-up of the companies of the Woodbine area could be very useful in knowing how
best to assist them depending on whether they are predominantly small, medium, or large companies. Of
the businesses we surveyed, the average number of employees was about 9.5 (5 or 6 were the most
                                      2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 41


common). The mean was slightly higher because one business said they had 65 workers, however, other
businesses said they had no employees. Of these employees, an average of 2.2 are part-time workers.
         The mean average starting wage per hour for the workers was $8.33. The median and mode were
also $8. The lowest was $2 per hour and the highest was $20. This is useful in knowing the income level for
Woodbine area workers. If the person interviewed gave the salary per year it was divided by 2000 hours,
and if given in salary per week, the number was divided by 40 hours to determine an hourly wage.
         Respondents were asked whether sales at their business have gone up, down, or remained the
same in the past year: 50% of respondents said their sales had remained the same, 30.6% said their sales
had gone up, with only 19.4% stating that their sales had gone down. However, the majority of respondents
stating that their sales had remained the same in the last year could be a sign of a stagnant area economy.
         In response to Question 54, 59.5% of respondents said that they have plans for future growth. Of
these 20 businesses who have plans for growth, 16 of them (or 80%) have plans for expanding, either by
hiring new employees, adding on to their existing building, or opening another store. The remaining 20% of
businesses with plans for future growth plan on expanding by advertising or remodeling. This is good news
for the Woodbine community. Growth brings new job opportunities as well as economic prosperity.
K. Other Comments and Concerns
        At the end of every survey we asked respondents if they had any other questions or comments to
make. The answers to this question varied greatly and were, therefore, not coded. They are listed below:
                                              Make bike lane
                                              Work on alleys
                                            Flooding Problems
                                  Problem with trash outside on sidewalks
                                               “Street folks”
                                             Language barrier
                                             Likes community
                                            Wants new growth
                                           Streets in poor shape
                                                   Crime
        Flooding was an issue that several businesses mentioned while the survey was being conducted, but
only one mentioned it when asked this question. Perhaps a question regarding flooding should have been
included on the survey.
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 42


               VI. BLOCK NONRESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY
Introduction
         This section reports on a project in which a group of Vanderbilt University students conducted a
block nonresidential environmental inventory on 30 residential blocks and 20 business blocks in the
Woodbine/Glencliff/Radnor neighborhoods. All 50 of the blocks were randomly selected on the basis that the
residential blocks had at least 8 residences and the business blocks had at least 4 businesses on the street.
This was found through the use of a criss-cross directory that would insure that every block had sufficient
numbers of homes and businesses. We focused only on nonresidential land uses, not residential properties,
and only on the randomly selected blocks. The purpose of the Block Nonresidential Environmental Inventory
(BNEI) is to systematically record observations of the physical conditions of a neighborhood. The results
often give insight into the quality of city services, as well as the consideration that business owners have for
the exterior appearance of their property.
        Throughout the months of October, November, and December, students of Vanderbilt University
went out into the Woodbine community in groups of two or more to observe the physical conditions in the
area. The randomly selected sample consisted of 30 residential blocks (each with at least four residences)
and 20 commercial blocks (all along Nolensville Rd or Thompson Lane). At the wish of the WCO, and due to
the format of the BNEI, their observations were aimed at nonresidential elements, specifically businesses
and public property (ie, streetlights, street signs, sidewalks, etc). Forms were completed for each residential
and commercial block, and additional surveys were taken of at most two businesses at each locale.
Students had in their possession an operational definition of each item assessed, so as to eliminate any
discrepancies in recording (see attached BNEI form).
        When interpreting the results, it is important to remember that only 50 out of 460 blocks were
selected for this study. However, generalizations can be made from the sample results about the rest of the
neighborhood.
Additional Observations
        In addition to the information included on the BNEI forms, observers included additional comments
that gave insight into the quality of city services and resident life. Although some of these observations
pertained to residential property, they were kept as brief and impartial as possible. Because these
observations were not taken methodically, they can only be discussed qualitatively.
         In the residential areas of Woodbine, observers commonly made note of ―ADT‖ security signs, or
signs from other private security providers. This is evidence that residents feel unsafe in their homes and
have taken additional measures to protect themselves. ―Beware of Dog‖ and ―No Tresspassing‖ signs signal
a sense of insecurity as well, and were made note of on many occasions. They also are evidence that there
may be a lack of trust and community amongst neighbors, as these signs serve to warn others from
approaching private property.
         In some areas, there was a problem with unleashed/confined dogs. They were often found either in
the streets, or in unfenced front yards. This is significant for several reasons. First of all, a wandering dog
may coerce neighbors, thus affecting the sense of community. Also, it is a sign that local ordinances
pertaining to animals are not being obeyed by residents, nor enforced by law keepers.
         Streets were mainly in excellent condition, however frequently lacked curbs or gutters. Many times,
a sort of drainage ditch was detected alongside the roads. However, there is significant reason to believe
that without proper curbs and gutters, many areas of
Woodbine may be experiencing problems with drainage.
         Also, on several occasions, it was noted that resident garbage had yet to be picked up at four o‘clock
in the afternoon, which may reveal a deficiency in city garbage services. Additionally, observers often noted
that power lines were overgrown with branches or otherwise not properly maintained. Again, this is a sign of
neglect to the Woodbine area.
        In the business district of Woodbine, the main observation that was noted was the great diversity, but
also lack of congruency of businesses on a single block. For example, on one single block of Nolensville
Road, an auto repair shop, a carpet store, a mattress store, a gas station, a restaurant, a real estate agency,
and an income tax service center are all located next to each other.
                                                     2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 43


        On several occasions, it was noted that construction, renovation, or building maintenance was taking
place. This is a positive sign that development and aesthetic investments are occurring in the area on the
behalf of business owners. It is also evidence that businesses profitable and can afford to make such
improvements.
        Finally, the best maintained section of Nolensville Road is located in front of the Hacienda
Restaurant. Trees have been planted in the right of ways on both sides of the restaurant, and to the front,
decorative brick inlay has been included into the intersection. If this attention could be paid to other
intersections of Nolensville Road and Thompson Lane, perhaps more businesses, as well as shoppers,
would be attracted to the area.

BNEI #1-4

         This section concentrates on the appearance and maintenance of streets in the community. The
findings from on-site observation that will be explored, relate to the number of abandoned cars (BEI #1),
damage to street property (BEI #2), graffiti (BEI #3), and unbroken street lights (BEI #4). In general, the
results from the business blocks did not differ widely when compared to those of the residential blocks. We
gauged whether a car was abandoned by its level of maintenance and if it appeared mobile. The number of
abandoned cars found in the residential area was significantly higher than the amount found on the business
blocks. Within the 34 residential blocks, only 2 abandoned cars were found and within the 22 business
blocks there were 0 abandoned cars. The lack of abandoned cars within the business blocks of the
Woodbine Community may be influenced by the type of companies that are located in the area. Many of
these businesses serve as car dealerships. Therefore, it makes sense that they wouldn‘t have abandoned
cars in front of their property. In addition, the two blocks in which cars were found in the residential area
were not in close proximity with one another. This suggests that abandoned cars are not a serious problem
in the area. Table1, below, illustrates which blocks were found with abandoned cars in the residential area.

                            Table 1. Abandoned Cars Observed in Residential Neighborhood

Block #:                          Street:                   # Of Abandoned Cars       Block:
22                                Mimosa Dr.                1                         3300
                                  Miller                    1

        There was not a great deal of damage to property within either sector of the Woodbine community.
Within the residential blocks there was a notably smaller amount of damage compared to that found on the
business blocks. The majority of the business blocks showed no signs of property damage, while 2 out of 20
revealed a large amount.


                                        Amount of damage to property

                                                                                     2700
    Amount of Damage




                       10                                                            Nolensville
                        8                                                            2700
         Found




                        6                                                            Nolensville
                        4
                                                                                     2800
                        2                                                            Nolensville
                        0
                                                                                     3600
                            Residential Blocks                   Business Blocks     Nolensville
                                                 Type of Block                       200 Collier
                                                                                     Ave.

(Graph #1)

        The graph above shows the extent of damage found on blocks within both sectors. Overall, there
were 4 blocks in the business sector of Woodbine to have obvious damage on their street property, while the
residential streets only had 1 case. Again, the business blocks are located on heavily traveled roads that
                                               2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 44


maintain a large amount of traffic daily. These blocks are at higher risk of damaged street property due to
the constant use of everyday wear and tear.
        The presence of graffiti was another variable observed within Woodbine. The area did not seem to
have a large problem with public displays of graffiti. Within the business blocks only 2 cases of graffiti were
found. Both of these were located on Nolensville Road and in a relatively close proximity of one another.
Within the residential areas, there was only 1 case of graffiti. The graffiti found on the residential block was
not close to the graffiti found in the business sector. It reflects well on Woodbine that there were only a small
number of occurrences of graffiti and it was not concentrated in one area. Graffiti often suggests gangs or
other groups marking their area on somebody else‘s property. Not only is it illegal, but when found on
business‘ or houses it suggests a lack of maintenance on the part of the owner.
          The amount of light produced on streets at night is often closely related to the level of safety in that
area. We recorded the number of unbroken street lights, including both high pole lights and low pedestrian
lamps. When roads lack working streetlights, it can create more danger for residents of that neighborhood.
Broken traffic lights are dangerous for both people and cars no matter what time of day. At night or anytime
when there is not a significant amount of light being produced for visibility and clarity, street lights are
extremely necessary. People driving cars in badly lit areas have a reduced amount of visibility and thus their
ability to drive is impaired. Areas that lack working street lights often have higher rates of crime and people
or animals are put at a higher risk of getting hit by cars that don‘t see them.

                                    Number of Unbroken Street Lights on Each Type of Block          Residential Blocks

                                                                                                    Business Blocks
                       10

                       9

                       8

                       7
    Number of Blocks




                       6

                       5

                       4

                       3

                       2

                       1

                       0
                            0   1      2          3           4          5     6         7      8

                                           Number of Unbroken Street lights



(Graph #2)
         As seen in the graph above, there is only one business block with less than three unbroken
streetlights. The residential blocks show a large amount of variability across the graph. Most residential
blocks had 2 or 3 unbroken street lights. The results from the business and residential blocks could be
influenced by their size. Residential blocks tend to be shorter, therefore some of these blocks might not
even of had more than 5 streetlights. In addition, most of the observations were taken during the day,
therefore affecting the reliability of whether or not the observer could accurately tell if the streetlight was
working.
          Conclusion: The number of abandoned cars, damage on street property, graffiti, and unbroken
street lights are all variables that have a strong affect on the aesthetics of a neighborhood and residents
satisfaction with their community. The data gathered suggests that none of these variables are a serious
problem for the community. Both the business and residential blocks proved to be maintained relatively well.
The residential blocks had a small number of abandoned cars (2 to be exact), an insignificant amount of
damage to street property and graffiti. The number of working streetlights varies widely in the residential
blocks. While a large number of blocks seem to have the majority of their lights working, the graph #3
representation of the residential area in the 5-8 unbroken streetlight range is minimal. This suggests the
neighborhood may experience some issues or concerns with safety. The results gathered from the business
                                      2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 45


blocks did not produce very different results. There were no abandoned cars found in the area and an
almost insignificant amount of graffiti. It is also expected that there would be some amount of damage to
street property within this community due to the high usage and populated streets. The streetlights in the
business sector show that there may be a demand for better maintenance of these lights. This information
can hopefully be used by the Woodbine Family Resource Center and Community Organization, the Glencliff
and Radnor Neighborhood Associations in assessing their neighborhood‘s assets and needs. In addition,
this completed study of the community can hopefully be used to show the government exactly what the
neighborhood needs in terms of money and resources.
BNEI Items 5-8
        This portion of the Block Neighborhood Environmental Inventory focused on the amount of
abandoned buildings, both boarded and not, the number of ―For Sale‖ signs, and the block neighborhood or
crime watch signs within the sixty Woodbine area streets surveyed. Sixty blocks were surveyed, both
residential and business, to take inventory of the items listed above.
         Findings: The first item is the number of abandoned buildings within the Woodbine Community on
the sixty blocks surveyed that were not boarded up. There were a total of two abandoned buildings that
were not boarded up on the residential blocks surveyed. One of the unboarded abandoned buildings found
was on Veritas St. and the other was located on Whittset. There were no abandoned buildings that had not
been boarded on the business blocks that were included in the survey.
        The second item on this portion of the BNEI survey was a search for abandoned buildings that were
boarded. We found, of the streets surveyed, two boarded abandoned buildings on the resident blocks, both
located on Whittset, and no boarded abandoned buildings on the business blocks.
         The third item was a count of the ―For Sale‖ signs sighted on the surveyed blocks. Out of the sixty
blocks surveys, there were twenty ―For Sale‖ signs on the residential blocks and five on arterial business
streets, four of which were on Nolensville Road and one on Thompson Lane. The residential block that was
comprised of the most signs was the 200 block of Collier Avenue, which had six ―For Sale‖ signs. The block
with the next highest number of ―For Sale‖ signs was the 500 block of Vertas with four signs. The other ―For
Sale‖ signs on the residential blocks were fairly random as the chart below, left, illustrates:

Residential “For Sale” Sign Locations:          Location of Crime Watch Signs:


Street Name Block #   # For Sale Signs         Street Name    Block # # Crime Watch Signs
Empire Dr.        800                 1        Peachtree St.    0-100                     1
Collier Ave.      200                 6        Saindon St.        500                     1
Whittset          300                 1        Selena Dr.                                 1
Mashburn Rd.     2700                 1        Twin Oaks Dr.                              1
Dumas            3300                 1        Wheeler            200                     1
Morton Ave.       200                 1        Mashburn Rd.      2700                     1
Eugina Ave.      2300                 2        Joyner Ave.        100                     2
Morton Ave.       300                 2        McIver St.         400                     1
Veritas           500                 4        Mavert Dr.        2900                     1
Peachtree St.   0-100                 1        McClellan Ave.     420                     1
Selena Dr.                            1        Miller                                     2
                                               McCall                                     1
                                               Sterling Boone                             1

          The final item to address in this section is that on block neighborhood or crime watch signs. While
the business blocks did not have any crime watch signs, the residential are had fifteen neighborhood or block
watch signs. While two of the blocks had two crime watch signs, the rest of the blocks only had one meaning
that thirteen blocks of the thirty residential blocks we surveyed had some type of crime watch signs. The
location of the crime watch signs on the residential blocks are listed above, right.
                                                      2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 46


         Implications: Overall, the BNEI survey proved that the Woodbine Community street blocks are
overall in good condition, with only a few specific areas of concern. Though the number of abandoned
buildings found was low, any empty building raises concern within a neighborhood. The number of ―For
Sale‖ signs can be read many ways from housing availability to people moving from the block due to
unsatisfying conditions. The high number of crime watch signs is a positive aspect of the community
because they help residents to feel safe and reassured on their blocks.
Individual Property Assessment of Items 10, 11, 12, 13, 17
Introduction:
         A total of 52 residential and business blocks were selected to be part of in the Block Environmental
Inventory analysis. This section focuses on the Individual Property Physical Environment. For those
randomly selected residential blocks that contained ―nonresidential land uses‖, the team took specific data
for every nonresidential property. For those nonresidential properties on the business blocks, the team took
inventory for two businesses per block. The businesses chosen were the two lowest addresses on each side
of the block.
        This section focuses on five different data taken on the ―nonresidential land uses.‖ Data was
collected for the graffiti found on the property (BEI #10), the presence of broken windows or fixtures (BEI
#11), cracked brick or concrete (BEI #12), poor lawn condition (BEI #13), and the presence of a flower or
vegetable garden (BEI #17). All of these inventory questions contained yes and no answers, and the team
collected all of the data from the front of the buildings.
Presence of Graffiti:
         There was no graffiti found on the nonresidential properties surveyed on the selected residential
blocks; therefore, 0% of any of the residential blocks or addresses had graffiti. In contrast, one
nonresidential area on the business blocks had graffiti present. Out of the 44 total addresses surveyed
within the business blocks, 2.3% of the total nonresidential addresses had graffiti. Of the 22 business blocks
surveyed, 4.5% had some sort of graffiti.
        The minimal presence of graffiti in both the residential and business blocks is good news for the
Woodbine community. The difference between the residential and business blocks could have resulted from
the locations of the nonresidential properties. The nonresidential addresses on the business blocks were
located on Nolensville Pike and Thompson Road. Those addresses on the residential blocks are more
secluded and not on major streets that are traveled often. The only business block with identified graffiti was
block number 15. The business type was a store located at 2615 Nolensville Road.
Graph 2. Broken Windows/Fixtures:                                     Graph #3. Cracked Brick or Concrete:
                Comparing the % Presence of Broken Fixtures                                         Comparing the Percentage Presence of
                    in Residential vs. Business Blocks                                             Cracked Brick on Residential vs. Business
                                                                                                                    Blocks
                16
                14
                                                                         Percentage Present




                                                                                              35
                12
   Percentage




                                                                                              30
                10                                                                            25
                 8                                                                            20
                 6                                                                            15
                 4                                                                            10
                 2                                                                             5
                 0                                                                             0
                         Residential                Business                                              Residential                Business
                                       Block Type                                                                       Block Type



         According to Graph #2, 3.3% of the residential blocks had a nonresidential property that had a
broken window or fixture. The business block percentage was higher, meaning that 13.6% of the blocks
contained nonresidential properties with broken fixtures or windows. From this data one can see that there
are four times more broken windows present in the business blocks than within the residential blocks.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 47


        Only one address out of the seven addresses that were present in the residential area had a broken
window or fixture. This also means that out of the 30 blocks that were surveyed, only 1 block contained a
broken window or fixture. In comparison, three out of the 22 business blocks surveyed had some sort of
broken window or fixture on the nonresidential property. Tables 2 and 3 below present the specific streets in
both residential and business blocks that contained broken windows or fixtures.

Table #2: Residential Block Data                         Table #3: Business Block Data

 Block #        Type of            Street                   Block #          Type of             Address
               Business                                                     Business
    13          Church         316 Whittsett                   33             Store          3042 Nolensville
                                                               14             Store          3001 Nolensville
                                                               35             Empty           234 Thompson
        The data illustrated in Graph #2 and Tables 2 and 3 do not demonstrate a problem within the
Woodbine Community. The numbers here are small, but this is something that the Community Organization
can look into in order to improve the appearance of their businesses.
        As shown above in Graph #3, 6.7% of the residential blocks contained a nonresidential property that
had cracked brick or concrete. This also shows that two out of the seven residential blocks that had
nonresidential properties had cracked brick, meaning that 28.5% of the nonresidential addresses had crack
bricked. In comparison to the residential blocks, 31.8% of the business blocks had nonresidential properties
with cracked brick. Of the 44 business addresses surveyed, 18% of the addresses had cracked brick. There
are eight addresses listed in Table #5 below because one block had two nonresidential addresses with
cracked brick or concrete. The business blocks have almost five times as much cracked brick as the
residential blocks.

Table #4: Residential Block Data                         Table #5: Business Block Data

Block #    Type of Business          Address              Block #     Type of Business         Address
  16            Church            106 Joyner Ave.            3              Store           3101 Nolensville
  24             Store           2313 Eugenia Ave.           6              Store           2632 Nolensville
                                                            10              Store           2510 Nolensville
                                                            33              Store           3042 Nolensville
                                                            35             Empty             230 Thompson
                                                             6             Other            2631 Nolensville
                                                             8              Store           3302 Nolensville
                                                            35             Empty             234 Thompson

        Much like the broken windows and fixtures, the presence of cracked brick and concrete may simply
be the result of location. Nolensville Pike and Thompson Road are high traffic areas and this means that the
businesses will have more people passing through their property. Even people merely turning around on the
property can wear the concrete. From these facts it makes sense that the business nonresidential properties
would have more cracked brick or concrete.

Lawn Condition: Table #6: Residential Block Data: Poor Condition
  Block #         Type of               Street
                 Business
     20           Church           415 McIver St.
     24            Empty        2306 Eugenia Ave.
      9            Store         2910 Nolensville
     12            Store         3017 Nolensville

         There were no business blocks surveyed that had nonresidential property lawns in bad condition. In
contrast, 4 residential blocks were found with nonresidential properties in bad lawn condition. A lawn in poor
condition means that there was grass, but that the flowers may have been dead or that there was no attempt
to cut the grass. Table 6 lists the addresses and types of businesses where such conditions were identified.
                                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 48


        Tables #7 and #8 below illustrate the residential and business blocks that have nonresidential
properties in good condition. Graph #5 shows the difference between the business and residential blocks.
30% of the residential blocks had nonresidential properties with lawn in good conditions as opposed to the
31.8% of the business blocks with the same feature. This is a small difference.

Table #7: Mixed Business/Residential Block Data: Good Condition
   Block #       Type of Business           Address
       1              Office                 Veritas
       9              Church               Louise Dr.
      13              Church                Whittsett
      16              Church              Joyner Ave.
      18               Store            2901 Nolensville
      29              Church             190 Thompson
      33              Office            3009 Thompson
      34               Store               Thompson
      37               Park                Thompson

Table #8: Lawns in good condition:
   Block #       Type of Business                               Address
       3               Store                                3101 Nolensville
       8               Office                               3321 Nolensville
      12               Store                                3020 Nolensville
      29               Office                                197 Nolensville
      33               Store                                3042 Nolensville
      34              Church                                 145 Nolensville
      37              Empty                                  380 Nolensville

        These data show that when there is a lawn present, the majority of the time it is in good condition.
Another important factor to consider when discussing lawn condition is that there was not always a lawn
present to survey.
         Graph #6 below reveals that over 60% of the time in both block types there was not a lawn present.
For the residential blocks this means that out of the total 30 addresses surveyed, 19 of them did not have a
lawn at all. For the business blocks, 30 out of the 44 blocks did not have a lawn. So while the properties that
had lawns were usually in good condition, more often the properties did not have a lawn. It was not recorded
the reason for not having a lawn, but this could be something that the Woodbine Community Organization
may want to look into further. A lawn adds a great deal to the appearance of a property and therefore is
important to consider.

Graph #6                                                           Graph 7. Presence of Flower or Vegetable Garden:
                 Comapring % of Properties Surveyed Without Lawn                          Comparing Percentage of Flower Garden
                                                                                         Presence in Residential vs. Business Blocks
            69
            68                                                                      60
            67                                                                      50
            66
  Percent




                                                                                    40
                                                                          Percent




            65
            64                                                                      30
            63                                                                      20
            62
            61                                                                      10
            60                                                                      0
                        Residential                    Business                                  Residential                Business
                                       Block Type                                                              Block Type



         As seen about in Graph #7, there is a major difference between the business and residential blocks
in the number of nonresidential properties that have a glower or vegetable garden. In the residential blocks,
only 3.3% of the total residential blocks had a flower or vegetable garden. Out of the seven residential
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 49


blocks that had nonresidential properties, only one had a flower garden. This means that 14.3% of the
nonresidential properties had a flower garden. In comparison, 50% of the business blocks had
nonresidential properties with flower or vegetable gardens. It is important to note that on one specific block,
both addresses surveyed had flower gardens. Additional data also reveals that 12 out of the 44 addresses
examined had a flower garden. This means that 27.3% of the nonresidential addresses had a garden on the
property. The specific addresses for these data can be seen below in Tables #9 &10.

Table #9: Residential Block Data                          Table #10: Business Block Data

 Block #          Type of            Address              Block #          Type of              Address
                 Business                                                 Business
    13            Church           316 Whittsett             3              Store           3101 Nolensville
                                                             6              Store           2632 Nolensville
                                                             9              Store           2971 Nolensville
                                                            12              Store           3020 Nolensville
                                                            14              Store           3000 Nolensville
                                                            18              Store            300 Nolensville
                                                            22              Store           2800 Nolensville
                                                             3             Church            31 Nolensville
                                                             6              Other           2631 Nolensville
                                                            14              Store           3001 Nolensville
                                                            18              Store           2901 Nolensville
                                                            33              Office          3009 Thompson

Conclusion: These results for the nonresidential properties are helpful because they suggest areas that
could be improved within the Woodbine Community. These data were meant to show areas on
nonresidential properties that could be changed in order to improve the physical appearance. The major
feature that could be changed is within the lawn condition area. It is important that property have lawns if
there is room for one. This is something that the WCO could investigate further. Overall, the differences
found between the residential and business blocks probably resulted from the locations of the properties and
some characteristics result from the amount of travel that the areas experience daily.


Types of Businesses
        This section of the report deals with the types of businesses and the exterior outlook of these
buildings. The façade shown to the public can have a large effect on your business. Therefore it is of the
utmost importance for businesses to know what is wrong and right with their property so that they can add to
its beauty and/or improve its weaknesses. The individual parts keyed on here are the type of business,
pieces of litter, the amount of exterior paint peeling, and the number of trees on the property.

Type of Business: Chart #1
Type of Business    Residential Blocks      Non-Residential
Church                        4                   1
Store                         1                  15
Office                        0                   1
Empty                         1                   3

        On the residential blocks there were six businesses and a total of twenty-two were found on the non-
residential business blocks. There were obviously more than twenty-two businesses on those blocks
however, the ones selected were the lowest two numbered on the block. It should not be a coincidence that
66% of the types of businesses found in the residential blocks were churches and that 68% were stores on
the non-residential blocks. This could be assumed because more locally church‘s are a place to gather and
know the people in the community surrounding you, while many stores are on the main road, Nolensville or
Thompson, (non residential block) so that they can maximize their profit.
                                               2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 50


                               Pieces of Litter: Non-Residential Blocks: Graph #1
                                                         9      9
                   9
                                                                              8
                   8
                   7
                          6       6
                   6
                   5
                   4
                                                                                                 3
                   3
                                          2                                                2
                   2
                   1
                   0
                       Store   Store   Store         Empty Empty           Church      Office Office
                        #1      #2      #3            #1    #2               #1         #1     #2


           As seen on the graph of 22 businesses on nonresidential blocks, only eight buildings had problems
of litter. Other than the three stores, two empties, one church, and two offices, all the buildings had not
enough litter to document. The graph shows that the two empties had the most litter at nine pieces followed
by the church. The stores and offices had the least. And twelve stores had zero. This is important and not
coincidental because stores need to have a clean appearance to attract customers along with offices. More
so than not people will go to their church if there is litter in front. However, many would go to a different store
if there was a competitive store next door with less litter and an overall better appearance. That is why only
three stores of fifteen had litter on them. On the 30 residential blocks assessed interior to the neighborhood,
6 nonresidential properties were found and only one, a church, had substantial litter in front (7pieces).
Condition of Building Exteriors: Non Residential Blocks
         Only four stores had exterior paint peeling. However, the paint peeling on the exterior varied from
store to store. One store had sixty percent of its paint peeling while the two other stores had ten percent and
the last had twenty. The ten percent stores can possibly be dismissed as low, however, the store that had
sixty percent paint peeling should look into fixing up. Sixty percent is a very noticeable mark on a building
that can definitely deter customers from coming in. To best promote business a clean and taken care of
building is the best for business.
        None of the residential blocks had any significant exterior paint peeling on buildings.
Trees
         The church and offices had trees on their property, while smaller percentages of stores and empties
had trees on theirs. This could be attributed to offices and churches having more money to spend on
beautification of their property.
                                Number of Trees: Non Residential: Graph #5:

         9
         8
         7
         6
         5
         4
         3
         2
         1
         0
             Church      Empty         Office #1   Office #2   Office #3   Store #1   Store #2
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 51


According to graph #5 the church, empty, and one office had the most amounts of trees at nine. This could
be so because the church definitely wants to have the appearance of a home-style atmosphere and the
office wants to bring in as much business as possible. These three types of buildings also have more area
and green space to work with so planting and having trees is more plausible. Therefore this is a potential
reason why stores have little or for the most part no trees on them; there is little space to place them. Stores
have to deal with parking lots more so than green area for trees. The church had three trees and the office
had 4 trees. Similar to the non-residential blocks the stores on these blocks had no trees while a church and
office did. Again, this is mostly due to space and the desired appearance of a home-style atmosphere.

Conclusion: In Woodbine there is not much of a problem with exterior paint peeling and litter. There are few
properties that have these problems and they are easily fixable. However, not many buildings had trees and
this could be a problem in garnering business. The ones that do have the trees probably have a bigger
business allowing them to build more trees. This can boil down to a chicken or the egg problem. Therefore,
Woodbine should look into subsidizing or starting a program to plant as many trees as possibly to spruce up
the area and attract more people. Once more people are attracted the businesses could expand and then
have their own money to plant more trees and make their store and surrounding area a more beautiful place.

Use of Outdoor Space

         This section looks at whether or not there is anyplace to sit outside the businesses found (BEI # 19),
and whether or not there are people observed using the business or outdoor space around the business (BEI
# 20). There are more business blocks (35%) that have outdoor places to sit (i.e. benches) compared to the
residential blocks (3%: 100 block of Joyner St.). This is due to the fact that most businesses are located on
the business blocks of Nolensville Pike and Thompson road. The businesses on these two roads generally
are bigger businesses (such as car dealerships) than the business on the residential streets, and therefore
attract more people (See graph #2). Due to the fact that more people will be at these businesses at any
given time, there is a need for more places to sit. This is a concern that the WCO and FRC should address
with local businesses and the city.
         However, the percentages indicate that there really is not enough places to sit compared to the
amount of businesses observed on each block (Chart 1). Only one business was found to have a bench on
the residential blocks and only 7 businesses were found to have benches on the business blocks. This might
be a concern for residents and business patrons that are handicap or elderly and need a place to sit while
waiting for the business to serve them.


                                      #19 Anyplace to Sit Outside Business
                                                     Block
 Block #:        Street:                         # of Benches                      Block
             3   Nolensville                           1                             3100
             6   Nolensville                           2                             2600
             8   Nolensville                           1                             3321
            18   Nolensville                           1                              300
            34   Thompson                              1                              140
             9   Nolensville                           1                             2900
            35   Thompson                              1                              300
                                                   2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 52




              Com paring the Num ber of People Seen Outside
                               Businesses
   18
   16
   14
   12
   10
   8
   6
   4
   2
   0
               Residental Streets                      Business Streets
                         N umb er o f B lo cks wit h Peo p le

                                                                                   (Graph # 2)

        There were 33 males and just 10 females observed on or in front of business properties while the
inventories were being conducted. One inference is that there may be more males that work in these type
businesses found in the Woodbine and surrounding areas. Secondly, the number of females could be lower
due to the possibility that females have more obligations in the house (i.e. childcare) that that they cannot
patron the businesses as much. Based on appearance age ranges were estimated and most
pedestrians/patrons (both males and females) appeared to be between 26 and 45 years old.

          Another interesting finding discovered from the Block Environmental Inventory was the type of
activities that the people on or outside the nonresidential properties were performing. As indicated in Graph #
3, out of the 43 people observed, 19 were found to be just ―hanging out‖, 8 were found ―working‖, 4 were
found to be just ―pedestrians‖ walking by, and 12 were doing ―other‖ various activities. From this it can be
inferred that the majority of people around these businesses are not really workers, and if they are, they are
not actually doing much work. If they are employees this is a concern to the employers because the
productivity level seems to be low. If they are not workers, then this small number of people around the
business could also be seen as a concern. It can be measured as a concern because 43 people is a very
small number when you take into consideration that 50 blocks were observed. This might be an indication
that business is struggling, considering the blocks were observed during normal business hours.




(Graph # 3)

         The last graph (#5) illustrates the number of businesses that were found to have people on or
outside of them. Of the 19 businesses observed with people, 12 of the businesses were stores, 2 were
offices, 2 were churches, and 3 were empty. Of the other types of businesses found on these blocks, none
of them had people on our outside. The fact that there were no parks, schools, or playgrounds observed
with people red flags another concern that the community should be aware of. If there are no parks, and
playgrounds with people this could indicate a few things: they are not in the greatest of condition, they are in
bad locations (not convenient), they are unknown by the community. These are just a few possibilities as to
                                                            2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 53


why there are no people in these locations. The time of day could also be a reason, because the BEIs were
done between the hours of 2-5 pm and might have affected the number of people observed.


                                                      # of Businesses that had people around

                            14

                            12

                            10
              # of People




                            8

                            6

                            4

                            2

                            0



                                                                                                t




                                                                                                                  y
                                                                        rk




                                                                                             nd



                                                                                                        en
                                     e




                                                                                                                          r
                                                       ch



                                                                 ol




                                                                                              lo
                                               e




                                                                                                                        he
                                                                                                               pt
                                   or



                                           fi c




                                                                      pa
                                                               ho




                                                                                           ou



                                                                                                      rd
                                                     ur




                                                                                   g




                                                                                                             em



                                                                                                                      ot
                                 St



                                         of




                                                                                 in
                                                             sc
                                                   ch




                                                                                                    ga
                                                                                        gr
                                                                               rk


                                                                                      ay
                                                                             pa



                                                                                   pl
                                                                       Type of Business

(Graph # 5)

Conclusion: In general, the results from this portion of the Block Environmental Inventory suggest that
number of places to sit outside businesses is a slight concern that could be addressed with those
businesses, the MTA (for more bus stop benches), and local community organizations. There were very few
people out and around the businesses during our periods of observation, which may be an indication of how
the businesses are doing financially, or simply the type, environmental design, and appearance of the
businesses and the wide streets with heavy, fast traffic not being conducive to foot traffic or spending time
outdoors. Further exploration should be done with the Nashville Civic Design Center and Metro Planning
and Streets Departments in regards to these suggestions and could help make this area of Nashville a better
place to visit.
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 54



                                       VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
   The resident and business concerns, problems, and perceptions of local services and assets outlined in
    this report should be disseminated widely to community leaders, residents, human services, and
    government officials in all departments and used to inform their efforts in improving and maintaining the
    quality of community life.
   South Nashville‘s diverse demographic profile presents certain challenges, which the city, police
    department, and schools are trying to address. Our assessment suggests that the cultural diversity
    should be seen and championed as an important community asset. The community must continue to
    work on cultivating strong ethnic group relations.
   The biggest concerns identified by residents and businesses included the need for more affordable
    primary health/dental/vision care and housing, sidewalks, traffic, crime, and more neighborhood voice in
    planning issues. With state-supported health insurance for low-income families in jeopardy, many poor
    and working-class residents are in dire need of finding affordable healthcare. More stop signs on
    residential streets and other traffic calming measures would help address the concerns of many
    residents. The city is gradually building more sidewalks in many areas, but the community could lobby to
    expedite the construction in their area.
   Residents desire more single-family homes but also more affordable housing. Housing construction of
    all types (single-family and multi-unit, owner-occupied and rental) and costs is needed in the
    neighborhood. The number of multi-unit condominium and rental properties is in particularly short
    supply. Higher densities, especially on or near the major arterials should not be a concern and would, in
    fact lend more customers and vitality to local businesses. There is a need for more affordable housing
    throughout the city, including in South Nashville so that people already living and working there, and their
    children, can afford to stay. Property values in the neighborhoods are continuing to rise. One way to
    solve this problem would be to increase the amount of single-family homes and duplexes on certain
    blocks to keep them strictly residential and build multi-unit housing in existing commercial, industrial, and
    undeveloped areas. Mixed-use (first-floor commercial, upper floors residential) along the business
    corridors would make the community more attractive, lively, and improve business and property taxes.
    Flatrock has warehouses and large lots on the West Side of Nolensville Pike. This area would be ideal
    for the development of multi-unit housing. Flatrock needs to work to clear up any negative stereotypes of
    affordable housing so residents are more open to development. Flatrock should have community forums
    to discuss housing so the residents are aware of the changes being made and are able to voice their
    concerns and contribute their ideas before development begins.
   Many elderly residents have settled in this community years ago and have continued to live here. Many
    people are planning renovations to their houses. They are expecting to stay in the community; many
    have family members and relatives that live nearby. The WCO and FRC could help home owners get
    loans and offer classes to encourage home improvements. Since many residents would like to improve
    the conditions of the outside of their homes, Flatrock could develop programs to help to improve the
    conditions of things such as roofs, siding, windows, gutters, porches, and steps. Also, neighbors could
    get together to plant flowers. This is an easy way to beautify the property and a good way for the
    neighbors to get to know each other.
   Parks and green spaces are important assets for communities. They create places and opportunities for
    residents to gather in public, common areas. The time community members spend outside directly
    effects the sense of community they feel with their neighbors. We strongly encourage the community to
    work with Metro Parks and Planning Departments to increase the number of green spaces and parks,
    and to restore their current ones. The community has a lot of available spaces to create ―pocket parks‖
    and community gardens.
   To increase community pride, recognition, and cohesion the area should consider adopting one generally
    agreed upon name, such as ―Flatrock‖ or ―South Nashville.‖ Additionally, signs could be made that
    signify the entrance into the community.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 55


   The entire Metro Public Schools system is working hard to improve, but the South Nashville schools
    require extra attention and resources and a multi-lingual staff due to the tremendous diversity and needs
    in the area.
   The bus system needs to be more accessible. Adding more frequency to MTA routes would increase
    use. Also, the prices are not prohibitive, but they are not conducive to encouraging use either. I would
    propose a revamp of the routes and pricing to enhance the system and encourage use, especially in
    lower income areas such as the Woodbine community. Currently, routes are not convenient or
    efficient—these two factors are major discouragements against using public transportation. Increased
    use of the MTA system will help to alleviate many of the traffic problems cited by residents. Nashville is
    very much a commuter city. MTA will have to work hard to overcome this obstacle, but once they do
    traffic and related problems will be much smoother.
   There was a moderate level of fear of being alone in the neighborhood at night among survey
    respondents, both residents and businesspersons. Community organizations can help to facilitate
    enforcement of criminal as well as traffic laws by requesting more patrol cars for the area and perhaps
    staggered shift changes of the patrol in the community (if that is not already the norm). There may be
    blocks that need more street lighting, but the lighting generally seemed adequate on most streets.
    Teens gathering in unsafe places can create problems, such as drugs and alcohol, vandalism, gang-
    related activity, and other crimes. To address these problems, the city and community organizations
    should provide more opportunities and places both at neighborhood schools and elsewhere in the
    community to allow young people to exert their energy in a more positive manner. Late night basketball
    tournaments are one such example. Also, the renovation of the Boys and Girls Club and revamping of
    its programs would provide a great place for the youth of all ages to go after school and engage in a
    number of positive activities.
   The FRC would be able to greatly benefit their clients by providing an enhanced drug and alcohol
    counseling program to the residents of their community. If such programming cannot be provided than
    the FRC should provide referrals and other resources for their clients to drug and alcohol abuse
    treatment programs. Conducting interviews specifically about sale of illegal drugs in neighborhoods
    would also allow the FRC to pinpoint many possible locations where drugs are sold and could provide
    them with useful information to present to the Metro Police Department and/or Metro Government
    officials in order to decrease the residents‘ concerns of the sale of illegal drugs in their communities.
    Other recommendations for prevention of future drug and alcohol abuse would be for the FRC to sponsor
    awareness programs that coincide with the national awareness programs such as National Alcohol
    Awareness Month or peer prevention programs in the community‘s schools.
   The neighborhood has a lively economic base of small businesses, which should be protected and
    developed. The community needs to continue to foster this trend and cater to the new businesses that
    continue to expand in the area. This economic asset is very valuable to the community. Although,
    Flatrock residents did not identify a significant need for more commercial development, there are benefits
    to increasing the number of both restaurants and retail stores. First, these places could be used as
    gathering places for people to celebrate important family or cultural events or simply to meet and visit
    with friends and neighbors. This can help to increase the sense of community and identification with the
    Flatrock community. Second, the businesses will increase local spending in the community. Residents
    will not have to go outside Flatrock to find what they need and will be able to spend their money at local
    businesses. New commercial development will attract people that are unfamiliar with the area and bring
    more money and recognition to the community. Lastly, the restaurants and retail stores would supply
    more jobs for people in the community and help to decrease unemployment rates.
   There may be a strong sense of community among kin networks and subcultures within the
    neighborhood, but sense of community among block neighbors was not high and there are apparent
    suspicions and lack of community or pride across the entire neighborhood. To build social cohesion,
    community pride and civic participation, the city, local organizations, community leaders and residents
    should plan more neighborhood events and block parties. One way of doing this on a small scale could
    be a picnic where everyone brings his or her favorite dish and is introduced to everyone. The FRC could
    even sponsor and organize a community cookbook with all the international foods represented with
    recipes from local families. This could be sold to raise funds for the FRC. On a larger neighborhood
    scale, the outdoor music concert at the park the FRC sponsored is a great example of ways to increase
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 56


    community awareness and participation. These would also be opportunities for local politicians to
    become better known and hear more of the concerns of ordinary residents. These events bring
    community members together and will increase the number of interactions that people have with
    neighbors and the number of neighbors that residents are able to recognize by sight. These events can
    foster informal helping among neighbors. It is essential that the events be well-publicized, not just
    through newsletters and local media, such as daily and weekly newspapers and local radio stations
    including foreign language ones, but through posters and door-to-door canvassing with flyers, also in
    multiple languages.
   Only 25% of residents said they receive the Woodbine Newsletter. The FRC, Mayor‘s Office, City
    Councilperson, and other community newsletters should actively try to spread their subscription
    base. Newsletters provide pertinent information for the community at large. Publishing the newsletter on
    a website would help but it should also be delivered or mailed to every home as those most in need of
    information (including low-income and non-English-speaking residents) may not have internet
    access. Newsletters to this community should ideally be published in Spanish and, if possible, Kurdish
    and other heavily represented languages as well as English. Newsletters should also contain a listing in
    every issue of the name, phone number, mailing address and electronic mail address of community
    resources and local politicians, so that they can be notified if needed.
   The Woodbine Community Center, the FRC, and other neighborhood organizations should improve and
    update their websites to make them more user-friendly. The internet could be used to: create a
    neighborhood e-mail directory; e-mail newsletters (cost effective alternative to standard mail); link
    residents to the Mayor‘s office, City Council, and other public officials to increase political participation.
   The Family Resource Center and other neighborhood organizations should hold a voter registration drive
    and have information readily available for citizenship and voter registration.
   Census tract 159 to the east of Glenrose Avenue and extending north of I-440 has the lowest proportion
    of home owners in the entire area and is clearly one to which the FRC, Woodbine Community
    Organization, and other local service organizations and public agencies should pay close attention. If
    the area just north of I-440 is not served by another FRC, South Nashville FRC, and perhaps also the
    WCO, should consider expanding their service areas to include it.
   The FRC had a board of dedicated and caring volunteers, but we observed that it was not as
    representative of the demographically changing community as it could be. By fostering greater and
    wider participation and awareness in the community, the FRC, Woodbine and other community
    organizations can empower the residents of South Nashville to create an even better community than
    they already enjoy.
   Smaller scale community organizing is essential to maximize citizen involvement-- participation would
    improve, and with it the representativeness of leadership in community organizations and boards, if more
    block captains were recruited and, where there is interest, block associations formed with the support of
    the local neighborhood associations, WCO, FRC, and Mayor‘s Office of Neighborhoods. The focus of
    block organizing can include, but should not be limited to, block watch activities.
   Finally, we encourage the South Nashville FRC, Woodbine Community Organization, the neighborhood
    associations, Metro Government agencies, and City Council Representatives to use this report to plan
    services more effectively and efficiently and to document needs in applications for funding. Identifying
    the strengths of the community will also help local organizations and residents to affirm, celebrate,
    protect, and build on what is good about the neighborhood.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 57


             VIII. APPENDIX 1: INFORMATION FOR INTERVIEWERS
The sampling strategy: This is the method by which blocks and individual residences are chosen for the
survey. Each interviewer will be assigned a certain number of blocks. Within each block, follow this strategy
for which houses on that block to approach:
        1. Start with the lowest numbered residential address on that block. Attempt to survey an adult
            from that household.
        2. Moving along the same side of the street, skip the next two households (note that these may be
            two single family homes or may be two halves of a duplex or two apartment units), and attempt
            to survey the next household.
        3. Continue down the same side of the street, skipping two households and attempting to survey
            the next one, until you have run out of households on that side of the street. Wrap your counting
            around to the other side of the street, and continue until you have selected four households from
            each block you have been assigned.

START HERE: lowest number address on block
                    move in this direction down the block

            | x*        x(sub)           x               x*               x               x___|

            __________________________________________________________________
            |x        x            x*           x            x            x* |

Attempt to survey an adult at each of the * addresses in the diagram above. When you attempt to survey
each household, a number of things might happen. Here‘s how to handle them:

    1. If no one answers the door.
        Note this address as one to return to later. Please make three attempts, ideally at different times
       of the day and different times of the week (weekday or weekend).

    2. If someone answers the door, but cannot complete the survey.
        If the person seems willing, but this is not a good time for them, please try to set up a time to
       come back to this residence.
        If the person is not willing to complete the survey for any reason, thank them anyway and note
       their address as a refusal. You will have to substitute another address in place of this one (the
       substitution process is listed below).

    3. There is a language barrier
        If the person does not speak English but does speak Spanish, try to communicate to them that
       someone else could come by and administer the survey in Spanish. Alternatively, if you can get their
       phone number, the survey could be done over the phone in Spanish. If the person can read, then
       you could just point to the following box and record the address &/or phone number where a Spanish
       interview is needed.

     Estoy haciendo entrevistas en la colonia para el centro de recursos familiares de Woodbine y otras
     organizaciones en la colonia.

     Esta entrevista tarda aproximadamente 30 minutos, y cubre una variedad de temas importantes en su
     colonia. Su participación es voluntaria y puede decidir a no responder a una pregunta o preguntas si usted
     lo desea. Sus respuestas son anónimas y confidenciales. Nosotros vamos a combinar los datos de las
     entrevistas con la información de las características físicas de las cuadras en su colonia.
     Por favor de escribir su nombre y su numero de teléfono si esta bien que alguien le llama por teléfono
     para hacer la entrevista en español.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 58


         If the person speaks a language other than English or Spanish, you will not be able to include
        them in the survey and you will have to substitute another address in place of this one.

Substitution process: If, for any of the reasons listed above (or some other reason) you have to substitute
                                                       rd
another address, continue with the skip 2, choose 3 pattern. If that unit was already chosen, try the very
next unit.

What to take when surveying residences
  1. Four blank surveys for each block that you intend to complete.
  2. A few pencils (pens are ok, but you may find you need to erase marks if people change their minds
       during the interview)
  3. Money to pay each interviewee ($5.00 per interview)
  4. A notebook or scratchpad to note if no one is home at certain residences (you may also note the
       time since you‘ll want to return to this residence at a different time of day the next attempt)

                                              INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is [YOUR 1ST & LAST NAME] and I am conducting a survey on neighborhood needs and
issues for the Woodbine Family Resource Center and the local neighborhood associations. Can I speak with
                                                                ST
a head of your household? [IF SOMEONE ELSE, REPEAT 1 SENTENCE.] Your block has been
selected, along with 49 other blocks in the Glencliff, Radnor, and Woodbine area, and your household is one
of 4 on your block that have been chosen to represent your neighborhood in this survey. If you are willing to
complete a 20-to-30-minute interview, I can offer you $5 as a small token of appreciation for your time.

[IF PERSON WHO ANSWERS REFUSES: Is there anyone else 18 or older who lives here who might be
willing to be interviewed?]

[TRY TO OBTAIN COMPLETED SURVEYS. IF PERSON ENDS THE SURVEY BEFORE IT IS
COMPLETED, ASK IF YOU CAN COME BACK OR FINISH IT BY PHONE (& GET PHONE #). IF
RESIDENT COMPLETES MOST OF THE SURVEY, THEY MAY RECEIVE THE $5 FOR PARTICIPATING.
                                       2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 59


                           IX. APPENDIX 2: INFORMED CONSENT FORM
RECORD ALL ATTEMPTS TO COMPLETE THIS INTERVIEW:                                    Block #:_____
 ADDRESS #         DATE TIME      NOTES: IF ASKED TO RETURN-WHEN? IF PREFER PHONE INTERVIEW- WHAT #?
1._______________________________________________________________________________
2._______________________________________________________________________________
3._______________________________________________________________________________
4._______________________________________________________________________________
5._______________________________________________________________________________
6._______________________________________________________________________________
7._______________________________________________________________________________

The following information is provided to inform you about this survey and your participation in it. Please read
this form carefully and feel free to ask any questions you may have. Your participation in this survey is
voluntary. You are also free to not answer any questions or end the survey at any time. Withdrawal or refusal
to participate will not be held against you in any way.

1. Purpose of the study: The Woodbine Family Resource Center, Woodbine Community Organization,
   and Glencliff and Radnor Neighborhood Associations are conducting this survey, with a grant from
   Vanderbilt University and the help of student and faculty volunteers from Vanderbilt. Those community
   organizations will use information from a survey of neighborhood residents and businesses, along with
   an inventory of the neighborhood nonresidential physical environment and Census and other available
   local data to improve their efforts to serve the whole community.

2. Procedures to be followed: If you choose to participate, the interview will last for approximately 25
   minutes [RESIDENT SURVEY/ 15 min. for BUSINESS SURVEY]. The interviewer will ask you questions
   about your perceptions, attitudes, and experiences related to both problems and assets in this
   neighborhood. The survey is anonymous. No personal identifying information will be attached to your
   responses, only a randomly assigned number for your street block. Responses of everyone surveyed
   will be combined and analyzed mostly at the neighborhood level, although average responses for
   particular blocks may also be compared.

3. Risks and benefits: There are no serious risks that can be reasonably expected as a result of
   participation in this survey. The main inconvenience with participation will be the time required for the
   interview. The potential benefits that may result from this project are increased knowledge and ability of
   local community organizations to address neighborhood problems and identify and enhance community
   strengths. Those organizations may choose to share the results of the study with local government
   agencies that can help address problems identified in the survey.

4. Contact Information. If you should have any questions about this research study, please feel free to
   contact Ms. Tonya Elkins, Director of the Woodbine Family Resource Center (850-3448).

5. Confidentiality: Reasonable efforts will be made to keep the addresses and signatures on this form
   confidential and separate from your survey responses. Open-ended survey responses or comments
   may be quoted in reports for and by the community organizations, but will not be attributable to any
   individual person.

STATEMENT BY PERSON AGREEING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY
I have read this informed consent document and the material contained in it has been explained to me
verbally. All my questions have been answered, and I freely and voluntarily choose to participate.

                                                 ____________________________________           ______
Signature of interviewer                         Signature of person agreeing to be interviewed AGE

If you would like information on the programs of the Woodbine Family Resource Center and Woodbine
Community Organization, please write your street address here:________________________________
                                  2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 60


                          X. APPENDIX 3: RESIDENT SURVEY
                      Block #______        Interviewer Name:______________________________

Please respond to each of the following aspects of this neighborhood by telling me how concerned
you are about it. Please tell me how concerned you are with each item on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1
being NOT AT ALL CONCERNED to 5 being VERY CONCERNED. If you don’t know or you
feel that the item does not apply to you, just tell me that.

       DOES NOT APPLY OR
                                               NOT AT ALL                       VERY     DON’T
                                               CONCERNED                     CONCERNED   KNOW
1. Need for affordable housing                     1         2   3       4        5      6

2. Developers’ influence in planning               1         2   3       4        5      6

3. Lack of influence by Nashville residents on development in their neighborhoods
                                                    1     2       3       4     5        6

4. Neighborhoods being ignored in favor of downtown development
                                                 1     2     3           4        5      6

5. Health care for low income residents            1         2   3       4        5      6

9. Dental Care for low income residents            1         2   3       4        5      6

10. Vision Care for low income residents           1         2   3       4        5      6

6. Neighborhoods being threatened by new commercial/industrial activities
                                               1       2        3       4         5      6

7. Traffic problems                                1         2   3       4        5      6

8. Lack of nearby jobs                             1         2   3       4        5      6

On the next few questions, please answer on a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is NOT A PROBLEM up to 5 is
VERY BIG PROBLEM, rate how much of a problem you think the following things are on your
block:
                                                                                  DOES NOT APPLY
                                                NOT AT ALL                    VERY BIG OR DON’T
                                                A PROBLEM                     PROBLEM    KNOW
11. Graffiti                                       1         2   3       4        5      6

12. Loud neighbors                                 1         2   3       4        5      6

13. Loose or stray dogs or cats                    1         2   3       4        5      6

14. Crime                                          1         2   3       4        5      6
                                    2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 61


                                                                                    DOES NOT APPLY
                                                    NOT AT ALL                  VERY BIG OR DON’T
                                                    A PROBLEM                   PROBLEM    KNOW
15. Gang activity                                     1          2   3      4       5      6

16. The sale of illegal drugs                         1          2   3      4       5      6

17. Alcohol abuse                                     1          2   3      4       5      6

18. Drug abuse                                        1          2   3      4       5      6

Would you like to see MORE, THE SAME AMOUNT, OR LESS of the following kinds of
property in your neighborhood?

19. Apartment buildings                               MORE           THE SAME AMOUNT       LESS


20. Duplexes                                          MORE           THE SAME AMOUNT       LESS


21. Single family homes                               MORE           THE SAME AMOUNT       LESS


22. Retail stores                                     MORE           THE SAME AMOUNT       LESS


23. Industrial property                               MORE           THE SAME AMOUNT       LESS
       (factories, warehouses, railroads)
24. Restaurants                                       MORE           THE SAME AMOUNT       LESS


25. On a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is VERY UNSAFE up to 5 is VERY SAFE , how safe would you feel
being out alone in your neighborhood at night?
                                                     VERY                         VERY     DON’T
                                                    UNSAFE                        SAFE     KNOW
                                                      1          2   3      4       5      6

26. Have you or any members of your household been the victim of a crime in the past three years?
                                                               NO                      YES

       If YES, was the crime against person (mugging, assault, etc) or against property (stolen
       goods, home break-in, etc)?          AGAINST PERSON                AGAINST PROPERTY

       If YES, did it occur in this neighborhood?                    NO                    YES

27. What is the most important problem in your neighborhood?_________________________
      ______________________________________________________________________

       Why?
       ______________________________________________________________________
                                      2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 62


Please tell me how satisfied you are with each of the following services in your neighborhood on a
scale from 1 to 5. 1 is VERY UNSATISFIED up to 5 is VERY SATISFIED. How satisfied are
you with…
                                                     VERY                          VERY      DON’T
                                                  UNSATISFIED                    SATISFIED   KNOW
28. Police protection                                 1         2    3       4      5        6

29. Fire protection                                   1         2    3       4      5        6

30. Garbage collection                                1         2    3       4      5        6

31. Public transportation                             1         2    3       4      5        6

32. Water and sewer service                           1         2    3       4      5        6

33. Code enforcement                                  1         2    3       4      5        6

34. Community Centers                                 1         2    3       4      5        6

35. Parks                                             1         2    3       4      5        6

36. Greenways                                         1         2    3       4      5        6

37. Safe places for teens to gather                   1         2    3       4      5        6

38. Availability of affordable child care             1         2    3       4      5        6

39. Conditions of streets                             1         2    3       4      5        6

40. Number of streets with sidewalks                  1         2    3       4      5        6

41. Quality of housing                                1         2    3       4      5        6

42. Availability of primary health care               1         2    3       4      5        6

43. Quality of public schools in this neighborhood 1            2    3       4      5        6

And now, please rate on a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is VERY UNSATISFIED up to 5 is VERY
SATISFIED, how satisfied are you with each of the following?
                                                     VERY                          VERY      DON’T
                                                  UNSATISFIED                    SATISFIED   KNOW
44. Your neighborhood as a place to live              1         2    3       4      5        6

45. Your block as a place to live                     1         2    3       4      5        6

46. Your house as a place to live                     1         2    3       4      5        6

47. The way your front yard looks                     1         2    3       4      5        6
                                    2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 63




48. The way the outside of your house looks            1        2      3         4      5       6

For the next few questions, please answer yes or no:
49. Do you use public transportation?                                  NO                       YES

50. Do you have your own transportation (motor vehicle)?               NO                       YES

51. Do you use any public recreation facilities in this neighborhood (park, playground, gym)?
                                                                    NO                    YES

52. Thinking about the past seven days, how many times did you chat with any of your neighbors?
              0              1—2                  3—6                   7 OR MORE

53. Do you know people in the area who would be willing to help others learn to read?
                                                                NO                              YES

54. What do you call the neighborhood where you live?           ______________________________

55. On your block, how many people do you know by sight or by name?

ALL/ALMOST ALL          MORE THAN HALF          HALF            LESS THAN HALF          A FEW OR NONE


56. Have you worked with any of your neighbors to improve your block or neighborhood in any
way?                                                           NO                   YES

       If YES, what did you do? __________________________________________________

57. On a five point scale where 1 is NOTHING IN COMMON up to 5 is A LOT IN COMMON,
how much do you feel you have in common with your neighbors?
                                                   NOTHING IN                        A LOT IN   DON’T
                                                    COMMON                           COMMON     KNOW
                                                       1        2      3         4      5       6

58. How many times in the past 12 months did you borrow or exchange things with your
neighbors?

       DAILY            WEEKLY           MONTHLY       LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH           NEVER


59. How many times in the past 12 months have you kept watch on a neighbor’s home while they
were away?

       DAILY            WEEKLY           MONTHLY       LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH           NEVER


60. What do you think is the public image of your neighborhood? [READ OPTIONS]

                 EXCELLENT               GOOD                   FAIR                    POOR
                                  2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 64


61. On a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is NOT AT ALL ATTACHED and 5 is VERY ATTACHED, how
attached do you feel to the block you live on?
                                                                                       DOES NOT
                                                                                       APPLY OR
                                                 NOT AT ALL                     VERY    DON’T
                                                 ATTACHED                      ATTACHED KNOW
                                                     1         2   3     4        5        6

For the next few questions, please answer on a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is NOT AT ALL
COMFORTABLE and 5 is VERY COMFORTABLE.

62. How comfortable would you be if people moved into your neighborhood whose race was
    different than yours?
                                              NOT AT ALL                      VERY    DON’T
                                             COMFORTABLE                  COMFORTABLE KNOW
                                                     1         2   3     4        5        6

63. How comfortable would you be if people moved into your neighborhood whose income level
was different than yours?
                                              NOT AT ALL                      VERY    DON’T
                                             COMFORTABLE                  COMFORTABLE KNOW
                                                     1         2   3     4        5        6

64. How comfortable would you be if people moved into your neighborhood whose educational
level was different than yours?
                                              NOT AT ALL                      VERY    DON’T
                                             COMFORTABLE                  COMFORTABLE KNOW
                                                     1         2   3     4        5        6

65. On a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is NO sense of community and 5 is VERY STRONG sense of
community, how strongly do your neighbors on this block share a sense of community?
                                                     NO                      VERY STRONG   DON’T
                                                  SENSE OF                    SENSE OF     KNOW
                                                 COMMUNITY                   COMMUNITY
                                                     1         2   3     4        5        6

66. On a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is VERY responsible and 5 is NOT AT ALL responsible, how much
responsibility do you feel you have over what happens in front of your house?
                                                    VERY                      NOT AT ALL   DON’T
                                                 RESPONSIBLE                 RESPONSIBLE   KNOW
                                              1       2      3       4     5      6
Now a few more YES/NO questions. These next few questions are asked in many neighborhood
surveys around the country.

67. Are you registered to vote?                                    NO                      YES

68. Did you vote in this year?             [?]                     NO                      YES

69. Do you think that Glencliff Neighborhood Association should be involved in advocacy on local
politics?                                                       NO                    YES
                                    2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 65


70. Do you think that Radnor Neighborhood Association should be involved in advocacy on local
politics?                                                      NO                    YES

71. Do you think that Woodbine Community Organization should be involved in advocacy on local
politics?                                                    NO                    YES

72. Who is the councilperson for this neighborhood?___________________________________

73. Who is the mayor of Nashville?_________________________________________________

74. Who is the governor of Tennessee?______________________________________________

75. Where would you go or who would you go to if you wanted to get something done in your
    neighborhood?_______________________________________________________________

76. On a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is NOT AT ALL effective and 5 is VERY effective, in general, how
    effective do you think the city government is to helping you and your neighbors?
                                                 NOT AT ALL                       VERY      DON’T
                                                 EFFECTIVE                      EFFECTIVE   KNOW
                                                     1        2     3       4      5        6

A few more YES/NO questions:

77. Have you contacted the government or council member about a problem in the past 12 months?
                                                       NO                    YES

       If NO, do you know who to contact and how to contact him/her? NO                     YES

       If YES, was the problem addressed? _______________________________________

78. In the past year, did you attend a meeting or do any work for any of the neighborhood
organizations?

       GLENCLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION                           NO                      YES
       RADNOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION                              NO                      YES
       WOODBINE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION                              NO                      YES

79. On a 1 to 5 scale, how important is it to you to be involved in efforts that improve your block?
    1 is NOT AT ALL important and 5 is VERY important.
                                                 NOT AT ALL                        VERY     DON’T
                                                 IMPORTANT                      IMPORTANT   KNOW
                                                     1        2     3       4      5        6

80. What is the one thing you like most about your neighborhood?

       ____________________________________________________________________

81. If you had an out-of-town visitor, where in your neighborhood would you take them?
        _____________________________________________________________________
                                    2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 66




82. How do you think the amount of green space (parks, lawns, areas of grass, plantings) in your
neighborhood compares to the amount in other neighborhoods in Nashville?
       My neighborhood has MORE               EQUAL AMOUNT                 LESS green space

83. How easy is it for a teenager in your neighborhood to find a job?
                                                    VERY                       NOT AT ALL DON’T
                                                    EASY                          EASY    KNOW
                                                     1       2       3     4       5      6

84. Please rate the quality of life for the elderly in your neighborhood
                                                                                         DON’T
                                               VERY POOR                       EXCELLENT KNOW
                                                     1       2       3     4       5      6

85. Where would you go to celebrate a birthday or anniversary in your neighborhood?

       _______________________________________________________________________

86. If there was a postcard of your neighborhood, what would you put on the front?

       ______________________________________________________________________

87. Do you receive the Woodbine Newsletter?                     NO                        YES
      If YES, what section has been the most important to you and your family?
              _____________________________________________________

88. What is your age?                 18-25    26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65         66-75   OVER 76

89. How many years have you lived in this community?
      <1      1-2         3-4         5-6       7-8              9-10          11-20      21+

90. How many years have you lived in this home or apartment?
      <1      1-2         3-4         5-6        7-8        9-10               11-20      21+

91. How many people live in this household?          ____________________________

92. Number of people in this household under 5 years old _______________

93. Number of people in this household between 5-18 years old __________________

94. Number of people in this household over 60 years old ___________________

95. How many people living in your home are currently employed? ____________________

96. How many years of school did you complete? ______________
      (For example, completing high school is 12 years)
                                    2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 67


97. Do you consider yourself primarily
       Hispanic         Caucasian              African-American      Indian or Native American
       other (Please specify: ________________________________________)

98. Do you own or rent your home?                                     OWN                        RENT

99. What is your employment status?

    EMPLOYED FULL TIME                EMPLOYED PART-TIME                      RETIRED

    DISABLED          NOT EMPLOYED BY CHOICE                  UNEMPLOYED, LOOKING FOR WORK

Now a few more YES/NO questions.

100. Do you have a phone?                                             NO                         YES

101. Do you have air conditioning?                                    NO                         YES

102. Do you have heat?                                                NO                         YES

103. Do you have a computer?                                          NO                         YES
      If YES, do you have internet access?                            NO                         YES

104. Do you attend a place of worship in this neighborhood?           NO                         YES

105. What is your religious affiliation?
       CATHOLIC       PROTESTANT              JEWISH          MUSLIM          BUDDHIST

       NO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION

106. Other than people in your household, do you have any relatives who live in the neighborhood?
                                                         NO                      YES

107. Do you plan any major repairs or improvements to your home/apartment in the next 12
months?                                                        NO                     YES

108. Which option best describes your residence?
      A single house, with no other units attached  __________
      A duplex or house with an attached apartment  __________
      A triplex or fourplex, 3 or 4 attached units  __________
      An apartment complex with 5 or more units     __________
      Other (Please explain:____________________________________________________)

Those are all the questions I have. Do you have any questions or other comments you would like to
make?
Thank you very much.

                [INDICATE RESPONDENT’S SEX:                    FEMALE          MALE]
                                    2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 68


                         XI. APPENDIX 4: BUSINESS SURVEY
Block #______           Interviewer Name:______________________________

1. Type of Business:________________________________(retail, service, ect)

2. Position of Interviewee:____________________________(manager/owner)

3. What year did you start your business here?               _____________________

4. Do you live in Woodbine/Glencliff/Radnor?        Yes            No

5. Would you consider moving to Woodbine/Glencliff/Radnor?         Yes     No     Already Do

6. How far away do you live from where you work? (in miles)        ___________________

7. If for any reason this business had to move to another neighborhood, would you be
                                                 VERY                      NOT AT ALL     DON’T
                                                 HAPPY                       HAPPY        KNOW
                                                    1        2     3       4      5       6

How satisfied are you with each of the following items?
                                                  VERY                        VERY     DON’T
                                                 SATISFIED                 UNSATISFIED KNOW
8. This neighborhood as a place to do business      1        2     3       4      5       6

9. The way the outside of this property looks       1        2     3       4      5       6

How satisfied are you with each of the following services in this neighborhood?
[REVERSE CODE FOR DATA ENTRY:]                  VERY                        VERY       DON’T
                                                 SATISFIED                 UNSATISFIED KNOW
10. Police protection                               1        2     3       4      5       6

11. Fire protection                                 1        2     3       4      5       6

12. Garbage collection                              1        2     3       4      5       6

13. Public transportation                           1        2     3       4      5       6

14. Water and sewer service                         1        2     3       4      5       6

15. Availability of affordable child care           1        2     3       4      5       6

16. Conditions of streets                           1        2     3       4      5       6

17. Number of streets with sidewalks                1        2     3       4      5       6

18. Quality of Commercial Property                  1        2     3       4      5       6
                                     2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 69


19. What do you think is the public image of this neighborhood?
        EXCELLENT                      GOOD                   FAIR                   POOR

20. In the next five years, do you feel that the overall conditions on this block will

                GET BETTER             STAY THE SAME                  GET WORSE

Rate how much of a problem you think the following things are on this block (where business is
located)
                                                  NOT A                           VERY BIG   DON’T
                                                 PROBLEM                          PROBLEM    KNOW
21. Graffiti                                          1       2       3       4      5       6

22. Loud neighbors                                    1       2       3       4      5       6

23. Loose or stray dogs or cats                       1       2       3       4      5       6

24. Crime                                             1       2       3       4      5       6

25. Gang activity                                     1       2       3       4      5       6

26. Loitering and Solicitation                        1       2       3       4      5       6

27. Litter or trash in the streets                    1       2       3       4      5       6

28. Are there any businesses in the neighborhood that are a problem?          NO             YES

        If YES, what is the problem? ____________________________________________

29. Is there a problem on this block that I haven’t mentioned?
   _____________________________________________________________________________
   ________________________________________________________________________

30. What is the most important problem in the neighborhood and why?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

31. In the past 2 years, have you attended a meeting of any community organization?
NO
YES  If YES, which organization? _______________________________________________

32. Would you be willing to join a local business association that would deal with some of the
issues we have discussed?
NO Why not? ____________________________________________________________

YES  Why? ____________________________________________________________
                                     2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 70


33. Have you contacted a government agency or council member about any neighborhood
problems in the past 12 months?                               NO                  YES

       If YES, who did you contact? ______________________________________

34. What would you most like the city to spend more money on in this neighborhood?

       ___________________________________________________________________

Should the city spend less, the same or more on the following items:

35. Improving existing Commercial Property
       LESS           THE SAME AMOUNT                A LITTLE MORE                 A LOT MORE

36. Streets, sidewalks and curbs

       LESS           THE SAME AMOUNT                A LITTLE MORE                 A LOT MORE

37. Improving street lighting

       LESS           THE SAME AMOUNT                A LITTLE MORE                 A LOT MORE

38. Beautification of neighborhood

       LESS           THE SAME AMOUNT                A LITTLE MORE                 A LOT MORE

39. Encouraging new housing

       LESS           THE SAME AMOUNT                A LITTLE MORE                 A LOT MORE

40. Encouraging new businesses

       LESS           THE SAME AMOUNT                A LITTLE MORE                 A LOT MORE

41. Public Transportation
       LESS           THE SAME AMOUNT                A LITTLE MORE                 A LOT MORE

42. Parks and green-space

       LESS           THE SAME AMOUNT                A LITTLE MORE                 A LOT MORE


43. In general, how committed do you think the city government is to helping businesses in this
neighborhood?
                                                  VERY                      NOT AT ALL     DON’T
                                                COMMITTED                   COMMITTED      KNOW
                                                     1       2      3       4      5       6
                                    2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 71




44. In general, how effective do you think the city government is to helping businesses in this
neighborhood?
                                                  VERY                          NOT AT ALL DON’T
                                                EFFECTIVE                       EFFECTIVE KNOW
                                                     1      2       3       4       5     6

45. Does this business rent or own this property?           RENT                    OWN

46. How safe do you feel going to your car or the bus stop after work at night?

                                                    VERY                    NOT AT ALL DON’T
                                                    SAFE                       SAFE    KNOW
                                                     1      2       3       4       5     6

47. Have you or your business been a victim of crime in the past 3 years?           NO    YES

48. Would you be interested in participating in shared parking programs?            NO    YES

49. Total number of employees? ________

50. Number of PART-TIME employees? ________

51. Number of FULL-TIME employees? ________

52. Average starting wage or salary? ________

53. In the past year have your sales gone

               UP             DOWN                   REMAINED THE SAME

54. Do you have any plans for future growth?

               YES            NO

       If YES explain: __________________________________________________________

Those are all the questions I have. Do you have any questions or other comments you would like to
                                              make?
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much.

[INDICATE RESPONDENT’S SEX:                  FEMALE         MALE]
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 72


       XII. APPENDIX 5: BLOCK NONRESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
                              INVENTORY
                by HOD 1700.05-Fall 2003, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University

               [Based on Revised Block Environmental Inventory by Perkins & Brown]
                                    Contact: Douglas D. Perkins
                       Program in Community Research & Action, HOD Dept.
                          Box 90, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
                                       Nashville, TN 37203
                            Phone: (615) 322-3386, Fax: (615) 322-1139
                                   Email: Douglas.D.Perkins@Vanderbilt.Edu
                             Dept. website: http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/depts/hod/

                                               INSTRUCTIONS

Problems with confusing block boundaries, with occasional errors in filling out the inventory and with the
inventory itself, such as classification ambiguities, are bound to arise. The success of the project depends on
such issues being brought into the open as they come up and not resolved independently by each observer or
team. Thus, when you have a question about the boundaries of a block or about how to code something, or
feel that a category or question is either unclear or inadequate (in that it misses important information), it is
critical that you do the following:

    1. Once the training and piloting of the instrument are finished, do not discuss how you rated
       something with your teammate until after you have both recorded that rating. DO NOT
       change any completed ratings based on such conversations unless the rating is clearly an error
       rather than a judgment call. BEFORE discussing an item with your teammate, check the following
       directions, project maps and other materials. The issue may have come up previously in which case
       there should already be an unequivocal answer spelled out.

    2. If you still have any question about the correct course of action and your supervisor is available, ask
       him/her to help resolve the issue before proceeding.

    3. If all of the above are unavailable, write down your thoughts and observations clearly and bring them
       to the attention of Dr. Perkins at a later time. The decision will have to be based on your notes and
       recollections and so, to avoid a special trip back to the block in question, try to be as careful as
       possible. You will be acting as the investigators' eyes and ears, in a very real sense. And, in general,
       your ideas will be quite helpful in making this project a successful endeavor.

    4. If the issue cannot wait and there is no way of contacting any of the above, you must discuss the
       issue with your teammate and any other available project members and make the decision
       yourselves. Write down thoroughly the rationale for the decision.

   Talk to your designated assessment partner and schedule a time to do your data collection. You do not
have to do all 3 of your assigned blocks in one visit, but all assessments must be done between 5 PM and 8
PM on a weeknight OR between noon and 8 PM on a Saturday or Sunday.

What to take to conduct an assessment:

    1. A copy of these instructions.
                                        2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 73



    2. Environmental Inventory forms (including a couple extra copies in case you have to start over).

    3. A detailed street map of the entire area with your assigned blocks clearly identified.

    4. A clipboard or notebook and several sharpened pencils.

    5. Extra copies of the PGEI Overview to offer anyone who asks what you are doing (if this happens,
       after the person leaves, note what was said and where it occurred, including the exact address if
       possible). Try to answer their questions and please be as polite as possible-- we will be surveying
       sample homes from the same blocks you are assessing.

The following is a brief description of the questions in the Environmental Inventory. It is important to
review these instructions and the checklist itself thoroughly before going to the field site so any questions can
be answered. Finally, check to see that the street name, block number, and cross streets have been filled in.

When you arrive at the designated block

First, when you get to an assigned block, check carefully to make sure that the street signs match the stated
boundaries on the checklist and on the map. The block includes both sides of the street and the properties on
all adjacent corners (including corner properties facing side streets, but not corner properties across boundary
streets). When you are sure you're at the correct block, fill in the exact starting time.

Block Physical Environment

First, go up and down the block once (either by foot or car) keeping a tally of all the items in this section.
Use the dotted area for the tally and the right-hand lines for the exact total.
  1.     Count a car as abandoned if it does not appear to be drivable (i.e., has shattered windows, dismantled
         parts, has been in a wreck, or has one or more flat or missing tires).
2-3. Damaged or graffiti painted public property would include signs, street lights, street trees, fire
         hydrants, etc. Count graffiti only if it is a painted name, design, or a mark that you could not cover
         with one hand. Count damage or graffiti just once per vandalized object (i.e., do not count multiple
         marks on a sign or the sign separately from its post).
  4.     Street lights include both high traffic lights and low pedestrian lamps. If the light is broken, count it
         under #2, but not here.
  5.     An unboarded abandoned building is not only vacant, but is dilapidated, has overgrown grass, weeds
         or shrubbery, or several broken windows.
  6.     "Boarded abandoned buildings" need not look dilapidated.
  7.     "For sale" or "Sold" signs may be on lawn or window of either private or commercial property.
  8.     Do not count ordinary corner street signs as neighborhood, block or block watch "identifiers" (rather,
         they will typically read "Welcome to ... block" or "This block protected by...").
  9.     "Street" trees or shrubs are on the "right of way", which includes the strip between the sidewalk and
         the street and is public property.
 10.     Count a pothole if it is bigger than your foot. Do not count cracks.

At the bottom of this section, check whether the block has sidewalks and curbs and gutters.

In the space at the bottom of the page, draw a map of the block (overhead view, need not be very detailed,
but label the cross streets &, only if you are sure you know, an arrow marked N for North). Mark with a 1,
2, 3…10 on the map to represent the items you counted in the section above. Draw in the approximate
boundaries and address if visible of any nonresidential properties to be rated on the next page(s).
                                         2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 74



Individual Nonresidential Property Physical Environment:

        At the top of the second page, start over at the beginning of the block (starting with the lowest
number address), walk down one side of the street and then the other. For most items in Section III, unless
otherwise indicated, write 1 for "yes", 2 for "no." Some items ask instead for an exact number ("How
many...") or percentage ("What %..."). You may go onto the property, if necessary, but try to stay on public
property if you can. DO NOT ASSESS OR GO ONTO ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. Use the
space provided and, if necessary, additional pages, for any comments or questions you might have and note
the category number, letter and, where appropriate, address it refers to.

         Write down the address (just the number) of every nonresidential land use on the block and classify
the type. For open land uses, such as parks, and large institutional (e.g., church, school) yards, give the range
of possible addresses (ex: "601-699 South 1000 West"). So as to avoid confusion, be sure to use the correct
abbreviation: STore, OFfice, Church, SChool, ParK, Parking LoT, PLayground, Garden, Empty, OTher. If
"OT" describe by address under comments. If mixed use, indicate each in bottom to top order (e.g., ground
floor is a store and upper floor(s) are residential (ST/R) or offices (ST/OF)). It is especially important to note
"eyesores," such as vacant lots ("E") with abandoned cars, overgrown lawns, etc.

Items (#s relate to RBEI by Perkins & Brown):
4.      Imagine if all street (up to half way across), sidewalk, and yard litter (including overflow from trash
        cans) were swept up; if you could not cover up the pile with 1 foot, indicate 1 (yes).
5.      Estimate the percentage of the surface of all exterior paint (including trim) that is cracked or
        peeling).
7.      Count the number of trees (of any size) on private property and visible from the street.
10.     Count graffiti only if it is a painted name, design, or a mark that you could not cover with one hand.
        Count damage or graffiti just once per vandalized object (i.e., do not count multiple marks on a
        garage door).
11.     Include as broken windows that are visibly cracked; these sometimes have tape along the cracks.
        Broken fixtures to look for include exterior lights and "personalizations" (see #16, below).
12.     Include any unpatched cracks or broken sections of brick, stucco, sidewalk, or driveway that are at
        least one foot long.
13.     Indicate yes (1) if there is at least 1 square yard of lawn that is either higher than 6 inches (about
        your thumb to forefinger spread wide), or brown, or has more than just 1 or 2 visible weeds.
17.     Include anything that appears to be intended as a garden, unless it is an empty bed.
19.     Include a low wall or other object that could be used to sit on only if it is the right height for sitting
        (knee or thigh level) AND it appears to be comfortable for sitting.

20new. Use of nonresidential outdoor space [this is similar to Section I of RBEI]. Please be as discreet
       as possible. Try to guess the sex and approximate age of each person who uses the outdoor space of
       this property, even momentarily, while you have completed the above checklist. Briefly describe
       their behavior. Circle or put in brackets individuals you have listed who are engaged in some group
       activity. If someone is doing the identical behavior of the person listed above them, you may use " "
       to indicate "same."
                                                 2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 75


                        BLOCK NONRESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY

Date: ___/___, 2003 Time started:_____AM/PM Time finished:______ Rater_____________________
Street name ____________________________ 100 Block:________
Cross streets:__________________________ & ___________________________

Block Physical Environment:

How many of the following are on the whole block?                0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+

1. Abandoned (undrivable, damaged) cars on street.               o o o o o o o o o

2. Damage on street property (sidewalks, broken                  o o o o o o o o o
      street lights, blocked drain)

3. Graffiti on street property (incl. signs)......               o o o o o o o o o

4. Unbroken street lights.........................               o o o o o o o o o

5. Unboarded abandoned buildings (not just vacant)               o o o o o o o o o

6. Boarded abandoned buildings....................               o o o o o o o o o

7. "For sale" signs...............................               o o o o o o o o o

8. Block, neighborhood or crime watch signs.......               o o o o o o o o o

9. Trees or shrubs on the "right of way"..........               o o o o o o o o o

10. Potholes in the street........................               o o o o o o o o o

                                                     Yes   No
11. Does the block have sidewalks?                   o      o
12. Does the block have curbs?                       o      o
13. Does the block have gutters?                     o      o

In the space below, draw a map of the block and mark (1, 2, 3…10) the above and use to draw the approx.
boundaries (and address if visible) of any nonresidential properties to be rated on the next page(s). Label the
cross streets & if you know, an arrow marked N for North.
                                               2003-2004 South Nashville Community Assessment: Final Report - 76


[COPY THIS PAGE AS MANY TIMES AS NEEDED] Street:_______________________ Rater Initials:___

Individual Property Physical Environment [All nonresidential land uses]:
Type: store, office, church, school, park, parking lot, playground, garden, empty, other
         o      o         o       o    o      o             o         o      o      o
If store or other, list type or name:____________________________________________

                                                                         0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
                                           Address:            digit 1   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o
                                                               digit 2   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o
                                                               digit 3   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o
Indicate how many of the following:                            digit 4   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o   o

4. Pieces of litter on & in front of property...                         o o o o o o o o o o

5. % exterior paint peeling X 10 (1=10%,2=20)...                         o o o o o o o o o o

7. Trees on the property........................                         o o o o o o o o o o

Indicate no or yes:                                                      No Yes
10. Any graffiti on property?............................                o o

11. Any broken windows or fixtures (incl. lights)?.......                o       o

12. Any cracked brick, concrete (incl. driveway, sidewalk)?              o       o

13. Is lawn in poor condition (>6in., brown, weeds)?.....                o       o o [no lawn]

17. Any flower or vegetable garden on the property?......                o       o

19. Anyplace to sit outside (e.g., bench)?.......                        o       o

20New. Use of nonresidential outdoor space. List each person who was outside on, or in front of, the
property you just rated at any time while you were completing the checklist for this address. Estimate age &
briefly describe their behavior. Bracket on right groups that are together. Use reverse side for additional
comments.
              AGE             BEHAVIOR (P=pedestrian; W=working; H=hanging out;
SEX        10- 15- 26-        O=Other activity)
M F <10 14 25 59 60+ P W H O Comments (use reverse if nec.)
 o o o o o o o o o o o 1._______________________________________
 o o o o o o o o o o o 2._______________________________________
 o o o o o o o o o o o 3._______________________________________
 o o o o o o o o o o o 4._______________________________________
 o o o o o o o o o o o 5._______________________________________
 o o o o o o o o o o o 6._______________________________________
 o o o o o o o o o o o 7._______________________________________
 o o o o o o o o o o o 8._______________________________________
 o o o o o o o o o o o 9._______________________________________
If > 9, how many total?           What are the others doing?_______________________________
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18+         __________________________________________________
o o o o o o o o o

								
To top